COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 309 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report  Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report       The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

A  number  of  recent  initiatives  have  been  taken,  aiming  at  improving  the  independence, 
quality and efficiency of the French justice system. In particular, a reform has been proposed 
to  expand  the  competences  of  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary,  which  would  further 
strengthen  judicial  independence.  The  perceived  level  of  judicial  independence  among 
companies  is  high  and  average  among  the  general  public.  Other  initiatives  to  improve  the 
quality  and  efficiency  of  the  justice  system  have  also  been  taken,  in  particular  regarding 
digitalisation and resources for the justice system. These measures could inter alia contribute 
to improving the efficiency of civil justice, which has deteriorated in recent years.  

France has strengthened its institutional framework for fighting and preventing corruption in 
the  public  and  private  sector  in  the  last  years.  New  specialised  anti-corruption  institutions 
have  been  established,  such  as  the High  Authority  for  the  Transparency  of  Public  Life 
(HATVP) and the French Anti-corruption Agency (AFA). With the adoption of the Sapin II 
law in 2016, the HATVP has seen its mandate extended to the management of the lobbying 
register and will now also be in charge of the regulation of ‘revolving doors’. The Sapin II 
law also introduced a comprehensive framework for whistle-blower protection. The system of 
assets  declarations  contains  detailed  information  about  previous  and  current  activities  and 
interests,  which  is  published  in  open  data  format.  The  National  Financial  Prosecutor  has 
established  a  good  record  on  securing  convictions  in  high-level  cases  of  corruption  and 
embezzlement of public funds.  

France has a well-established legal and institutional framework supporting media pluralism. 
The audiovisual media regulator is independent and monitors closely the media market. The 
rules  on  media  ownership  transparency  ensure  that  media  ownership  information  is  made 
available to the public. In addition, the impact of direct and indirect owners on competition is 
being assessed in case of media ownership developments. The allocation of state advertising 
is regulated and spread throughout different types of media. The political influence over the 
media  is  considered  low,  also  because  of  safeguards  relating  to  public  officials  and  to 
members of the media regulator. Editorial independence enjoys a strong protection, but much 
of this protection only applies to contractual journalists. Moreover, recent years saw a surge 
of online and offline threats against journalists, including physical attacks.  

The  process  for  enacting  laws  includes  impact  assessments  and  frequent  stakeholder 
consultations, and the Council of State contributes to ensuring the quality of legislation. The 
recent initiative on a Citizens Convention explores an innovative way of involving citizens in 
the legislative process. Several independent authorities, including the Defender of Rights and 
the  National  Consultative  Commission  on  Protecting  and  Promoting  Human  Rights, 
contribute  to  safeguarding  fundamental  rights.  The  Constitutional  Council,  the  Council  of 
State and other independent authorities play a key role in the system of checks and balances.  

1 

 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The justice system is composed of two autonomous branches of courts: ordinary courts with 
jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases on the one hand, and administrative courts on the other 
hand.  Both  branches  consist  of  three  levels  of  courts,  with  first  instance  courts,  courts  of 
appeal and an upper court (the Court of Cassation and the Council of State, respectively). The 
Council of State also has an advisory branch that provides opinions on draft legislation, and is 
tasked  with  the  management  of  the  administrative  tribunals  and  courts  of  appeal.  The 
Constitutional Council is competent to verify the constitutionality of laws. The High Council 
for  the  Judiciary,  which  is  composed  by  a  majority  of  magistrates  elected  by  their  peers,1 
plays an important role in safeguarding judicial independence. The prosecution service is part 
of the judiciary, and falls under the authority of the Minister of Justice.2 The latter can give 
general instructions on prosecution policy but is barred from giving instructions in individual 
cases.3 Lawyers are represented by various bar associations throughout France.  

Independence 

Reforms to further strengthen judicial independence have recently been proposed. The 
High Council for the Judiciary plays a  key role in safeguarding judicial  independence. It is 
competent to nominate candidates for a number of key positions,4 while judges in general are 
nominated  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  following  a  binding  opinion  from  the  Council. 
Prosecutors  are  nominated  by  the  Minister  of  Justice,  following  an  opinion  of  the  Council 
that is merely advisory. Members of the judiciary are subsequently appointed formally by the 
President of the Republic. A proposed constitutional reform5 would make the opinion of the 
High  Council  on  the  nomination  of  candidate-prosecutors  binding  upon  the  executive, 
strengthening  its  role  in  the  appointment  process.  Furthermore,  the  High  Council  is  the 
competent  body  to  decide  on  disciplinary  measures  regarding  judges, while  the Minister  of 
Justice adopts disciplinary decisions regarding prosecutors upon a non-binding opinion of the 
High Council. The proposed reform would also make the High Council the competent body 
to  decide  on  disciplinary  measures  regarding  prosecutors.  GRECO  has  welcomed  these 
proposed constitutional changes.6 In  addition, the proposed  reform would put  an end  to  the 
right of former Presidents of the Republic to become members of the Constitutional Council 
after  their  service.7  It  would  also  abolish  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  Republic8,  which  is 

1   The  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  has  two  distinct  formations.  For  the  formation  relating  to  judges,  the 
High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  is  comprised  of  the  President  of  the  Court  of  Cassation,  five  judges,  one 
public prosecutor, one member of the Council of State, one lawyer, and six other qualified members, who 
are not affiliated with the Parliament, the judiciary or the administrative order. For the formation relating to 
prosecutors,  the  High  Council  of  the  Judiciary  is  comprised  of  the  General  Prosecutor  of  the  Court  of 
Cassation, five public prosecutors, one judge, the same member of the Council of State as mentioned above, 
the same lawyer as mentioned above and the same six other qualified members as mentioned above. See also 
in that regard para. 27 of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council 
of Europe, which states that ‘Not less than half the members of such councils [for the judiciary] should be 
judges  chosen  by  their  peers  from  all  levels  of  the  judiciary  and  with  respect  for  pluralism  inside  the 
judiciary’.  

2   Art. 5, Ordinance 58-1270 of 22 December 1958.   
3   Art. 1, Law 2013-669 of 25 July 2013.  
4   These include the First President of the Court of Cassation, the presidents of the Courts of Appeal and the 

presidents of first instance courts. 

5   The proposed reform was introduced by President Macron in August 2019. 
6   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report for France, p. 24. 
7   There is currently one former President serving on the Constitutional Council.  

2 

 
 
                                                 
competent  to  hear  criminal  cases  relating  to  acts  of  members  of  the  Government  in  the 
exercise  of  their  functions.  Instead,  the  Paris  Court  of  Appeal  would  become  competent  to 
hear such cases. Besides these proposed reforms, other developments have taken place, such 
as  the  adoption  of  a  new  Compendium  on  the  Judiciary’s Ethical  Obligations9  by  the  High 
Council  in  January  2019.  This  Compendium  recommends  that  active  members  of  the 
judiciary do not request honorary distinctions for themselves, in order to avoid any suspicion 
by the general public as regards their independence.10 In that regard, the Council of Europe 
had  previously  expressed  concerns  about  the  possibility  to  award  official  honorary 
decorations and distinctions to judges.11  

The  level  of  perceived  independence  among  companies  is  high,  and  the  level  of 
perceived  independence  among  the  general  public  is  average.  Among  the  general 
population, 56% consider the level of independence of courts to be ‘fairly or very good’, as 
well  as  68%  of  businesses.12  While  the  perceived  level  of  independence  by  companies  has 
increased  in  recent  years,  it  has  remained  largely  stable  since  2016  for  the  general 
population.13 

Quality 

Efforts  are  ongoing  to  further  develop  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system.  The 
availability  of  online  information  about  the  justice  system  for  the  general  public  is 
comprehensive,14  and  the  possibility  to  transmit  summons  and  monitor  the  stages  of  a 
proceeding  online  is  widespread  among  the  courts.15  However,  the  possibility  to  submit  a 
case via online means remains limited,16 as do the categories of judgments that are published 
online.17 In that sense, a recent decree18 on making available judicial decisions to the public 
represents  a  next  step  in  the  digitalisation  process.  However,  stakeholders  have  previously 
expressed criticism of the modalities of publication and stressed the need to ensure safety and 
privacy of members of the judiciary.19 Additionally, the Programming Law for Justice 2018-
202220 seeks to further digitalise legal procedures, and a process is ongoing to facilitate the 
online submission of requests for legal aid.  

8   This  special  court  is composed of  six  members  of  the Senate,  six  members  of  the National Assembly and 
three  judges  of  the  Court  of  Cassation.  One  of  the  three  judges  of  the  Court  of  Cassation  serves  as  its 
President.  

9   High Council for the Judiciary (2019), Compendium on the Judiciary’s Ethical Obligations. 
10   High Council for the Judiciary (2019), Compendium on the Judiciary’s Ethical Obligations, p. 9.  
11   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report for France, p. 24. 
12   While 5% of  the general  population  and  3%  of  companies  indicate  that they  perceive  the  level of judicial 
independence  to  be  ‘very  good’  and  51%  of  the  general  population  and  65%  of  companies  perceive  it  as 
‘fairly  good’,  31%  of  the  general  population  and  27%  of  companies  perceive  the  level  of  judicial 
independence  to  be  ‘fairly  or  very  bad’.  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  2020,  Figures  44  &  46;  Eurobarometer 
survey.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of 
respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); low (between 30-39%), average 
(between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

13   Figures 44 and 46, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
14   Figure 22, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
15   Figure 27, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
16   Figure 27, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
17   Figure 28, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
18   Decree 2020-797 of 29 June 2020.  
19   See for example: Syndicat de la Magistrature, lettre du 3 décembre 2019 adressée à Madame la garde des 

Sceaux.   

20   Loi 2019-222 du 23 mars 2019 de programmation 2018-2022 et de réforme pour la justice.  

3 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
Initiatives  aim  at  increasing  the  resources  for  the  justice  system.  While  the  total  public 
expenditure  on  law  courts  in  EUR  per  inhabitant  is  above  average,  the  expenditure  as  a 
percentage of GDP is rather low.21 The Programming Law for Justice 2018-2022 provides for 
a  significant  increase  in  the  financial  resources  provided  to  the  justice  system,  with  a  24% 
difference between the 2017 budget of EUR 6.7 billion and the planned amount of EUR 8.3 
billion in 2022. Additionally, a consultation between the Ministry of Justice and stakeholders 
is ongoing since July 2019 to develop a reliable workload measurement tool. The availability 
of  such  a  tool  would  be  beneficial  for  the  optimal  management  of  human  and  financial 
resources  within  the  judiciary.  As  regards  legal  aid,  the  income  threshold  to  be  eligible  for 
full  legal  aid  is  slightly  below  the  Eurostat  poverty  threshold.22  The  Programming  Law  for 
Justice  2018-2022  introduces  mandatory  mediation  for  certain  small  claims  cases,23  which 
may have an impact on citizens’ access to justice. 

Certain  measures  relating  to  the  functioning  of  the  justice  system  were  introduced 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. While these measures included the early release of certain 
categories of detainees, an automatic prolongation of the length of pre-trial detention was also 
introduced.24 The measure faced strong criticism from stakeholders, who emphasised the risk 
to ensuring the fundamental right to liberty.25 The Council of State has rejected a legal action 
contesting  the  legality  of  the  prolongation  of  pre-trial  detention.26  The  Court  of  Cassation 
ruled  that  the  court  that  would  normally  have  decided  on  the  prolongation  should  rapidly 
review the validity of the prolongation decision.27   

Efficiency 

Civil  justice  faces  some  challenges  with  regards  to  its  efficiency.  The  estimated  time 
needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases has increased in recent years, with an 
average time of over 400 days in 2018.28 Moreover, the clearance rate for litigious civil and 
commercial  cases  has  decreased  to  96%  for  2018,29  and  there  is  a  significant  number  of 
pending  litigious  civil  and  commercial  cases.30  The  recent  introduction  of  the  provisional 
execution of first-instance court decisions aims to further foster the efficiency of the justice 
system.  Furthermore,  the  recent  merger  of  different  types  of  first-instance  courts  into  one 
form  of  “tribunal  judiciaire”  may  also  help  achieve  this  objective,31  although  stakeholders 
have expressed some concerns about the impact of this reform on citizens’ access to justice.32 

21   Figures 32 and 33, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
22   Figure 23, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
23   Art. 3, Loi 2019-222 du 23 mars 2019.  
24   Art. 16, Ordinance 2020-303 of 25 March 2020.  
25   See  also  criticising  a  lack  of  clarity:  Magistrates  Union  (2020),  Automatic  extension  of  provisional 

detentions: after the scandal and the mess, nonchalance!  

26   Decision no. 439877 of the Council of State of 3 April 2020. See also more recently: Constitutional Council 

decision 2020-851/852 of 3 July 2020.  

27   Judgment no. 974 of the Court of Cassation of 26 May 2020 (20-81.910).  
28   Figure 6, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. This number is lower at third instance, see Figure 7.  
29   Figure 11, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
30   Figure 14, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
31   No courthouses were closed.  
32   Information received in the context of the virtual country visit.  

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

France has the institutional and legislative framework broadly in place. Laws are in place to 
prevent  and  fight  corruption  in  the  private  and  public  sector,  including  whistle-blowers 
protection,  assets  declaration,  lobbying  and  ‘revolving  doors’.  Authorities  involved  in  the 
fight  against  corruption  include  the  Anti-Corruption  Agency,  High  Authority  for  the 
Transparency  of  Public  life  and  the  Central  Office  for  Combating  Corruption  and  Tax 
Offences. The National Financial Prosecutor is competent for the investigation of high level 
corruption cases.  

France scores 69/100 on the latest Transparency Corruption Perception Index, ranking 
9th in the European Union and 23rd globally33. Amongst French respondents, 70% perceive 
corruption  widespread  in  their  country  (EU  average  71%),  while  10%  of  people  feel 
personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily  lives.  As  regards  businesses,  55%  of 
companies consider corruption to be widespread (EU average 63%),34 and 51% of companies 
consider  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  37%).  26%  of 
respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt 
practices (EU average of 36%) while 43% of companies consider that people and businesses 
caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 31%).35 

National  legislation  criminalises  all  forms  of  active  and  passive  corruption  offences  in 
the  public  and  private  sector.  This  includes  corruption  in  the  field  of  sports,  as  well  as 
corruption  and  influence  peddling  in  the  public sector. In  January  2020,  France  adopted  its 
first multiannual national plan to fight corruption. Developed by the French Anti-Corruption 
Agency (AFA) in consultation with all the administrations and local authorities concerned, it 
covers  the  period  2020-2022.  The  national  plan  covers  both  the  preventive  and  repressive 
dimensions  of  corruption  and  foresees  strengthened  preventive  measures,  as  well  as  an 
increased effectiveness of international cooperation when it comes to fighting corruption. A 
public  consultation  is  planned  at  the  end  of  2021,  in  order  to  involve  civil  society  and  all 
stakeholders in the evaluation of the first results of the national plan's actions. 

The  Anti-Corruption  Agency  (AFA)  has  been  established  on  9  December  201636.  The 
AFA  is  headed  by  a  magistrate  appointed  by  decree  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  for  a 
non-renewable term of six years. His functions may only be terminated at his request or in the 
event  of  incapacity  or  serious  misconduct.  In  the  exercise  of  his  control  functions,  the 
Director  of  the  AFA  may  not  receive  or  request  instructions  from  any  administrative  or 
Government authority. The AFA prepares the multiannual anti-corruption plan and supports 
private and public legal persons on how to prevent and detect corruption.37 It also monitors 
the  quality  of  preventive  systems  in  public  bodies,  both  at  the  central  state  and  the  local 
levels, in public-interest non-profit organisations and foundations, and in public and private 
companies  under  its  jurisdiction,  as  well  as  the  adoption  of  compliance  programmes  under 
judicial decisions.38  

33   Transparency International (2019) Corruption Perceptions Index. 
34   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020).  
35   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).  
36   Law 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016, known as "Sapin II". 
37   The AFA  also supports  private  and  public legal  persons on  how  to  prevent and detect  influence peddling, 
extortion by public officials, unlawful taking of interest, misappropriation of public funds and favouritism.   
38   The  controls  exercised  in  execution  of  judicial  decisions:  a  legal  person  is  required  to  set  up  an  anti-
corruption  compliance  program  under  the  control  of  the  AFA:  in  application  of  the  compliance  program 

5 

 
 
                                                 
The  High  Authority  for  the  Transparency  of  Public  Life  (HATVP)  is  responsible  for 
ensuring  the  integrity  of  public  institutions.  The  missions  of  the  independent  authority, 
established  in  2013,  include  controlling  the  completeness,  accuracy  and  fairness  of  the 
declarations  of  assets  and  interests  of  mandate  holders  or  public  employees,  reporting 
suspicious cases to the National Financial Prosecutor's Office39 and providing ethical advice 
to public officials. Assets declarations are transmitted either to their appointing authority or to 
the  HATVP.  The  interest  declarations  of  officials  and  ministers  are  available  in  open  data 
format,  although  those  of  members  of  Parliament  are  not  publicly  available.40  In  2018,  the 
HATVP received 5787 declarations of interest and assets. It estimates that officials comply 
with their declarative obligation at a rate of 99.82%. In 2018, it transmitted 30 cases to the 
public  prosecutors’  office.41  The  HATVP  may  also  make  proposals  on  possible 
improvements to the legal and institutional framework included in its annual reports. With the 
adoption  of  the  Sapin  II  law42  in  2016,  the  HATVP  has  seen  its  mandate  extended  to  the 
management  of  the  lobbying  register.  Since  then,  it  is  also  in  charge  of  the  regulation  of 
‘revolving  doors’.  In  2018,43  the  High  Authority  employed  52  agents,  received  5,787 
declarations of assets and interests and had a budget of EUR 5.5 million. Other institutions 
involved  in  the  anti-corruption  framework  are:  the  National  Commission  on  Campaign 
Accounts  and  Political  Financing,44  and  the  Ethics  Commissioner  of  the  National 
Assembly,45 which was recently attributed with new missions46 and is increasingly consulted 
by the members of Parliament.  

While  all  police  branches  can  investigate  corruption  crimes,  a  Central  Office  for 
Combating  Corruption  and  Tax  Offenses  (OCLCIFF)  is  dedicated  specifically  to 
investigating  corruption  and  bribery  of  foreign  public  officials.  The  Central  Office 
(OCLCIFF) works under the direction of the National Financial Prosecutor's Office (PNF), an 
office  highly  specialised  in  the  fight  against  corruption.  In  February  2020,  the  Ministry  of 
Justice  published  a  report  on  corruption-related  cases  in  2018.  It  indicates  that  such  cases 
haves  increased  by  24%  since  2013.47  To  meet  the  challenges  that  this  increase  brings,  the 
financial police was reorganised in July 2019. A sub-directorate dedicated solely to financial 
crime has been created to bring together different departments in charge of these cases: the 
sub-directorate for the fight against financial crime. Within this new structure, the OCLCIFF 
is in charge of cases of corruption, embezzlement of public funds and tax fraud. The staff of 
OCLCIFF is made up of 90 agents in 2020. 

penalty provided for in article 131-39-2 of the Criminal Code, additional penalty likely to be imposed by a 
criminal court or in execution of a judicial agreement of public interest provided for in article 41-1-2 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure. 

39   Parquet national financier. 
40   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and 

prosecutors: Second Compliance Report for France.  

41   HATVP (2019), Activity report of 2018.  
42   Law on Transparency, the Fight against Corruption and the Modernisation of Economic Life, which aims to 
reinforce  transparency,  fight  corruption  and  modernize  economic  life.  The  measures  adopted  include  the 
establishment of the High Authority for the Transparency of Public Life and Whistleblowers Protection.   

43   HATVP (2019), Activity report of 2018. 
44   Commission nationale des comptes de campagne et du financement politique (CNCCFP). 
45   Déontologue de l’Assemblée nationale, 
46   National  Assembly  (2019),  A  new  enthusiasm  for  parliamentary  ethics:  Annual  report  submitted  to  the 
President and to the Office of the National Assembly on 14 and 30 January 2019, in accordance with article 
80-3 of the Rules of the National Assembly. 

47   Ministry of Justice (2020), Breaches of integrity: statistical elements. 

6 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
The  work  of  the  National  Financial  Prosecutor  (PNF)  has  led  to  the  prosecution  and 
conviction  of  several  high-level  cases  including  politicians  and  representatives  of 
international companies. The PNF reports to have developed close relations with its foreign 
counterparts and to have concluded several agreements following joint investigations through 
the use of legal conventions of public interest.48 As of December 2019, the PNF had 582 files 
in its portfolio, 50% of which concerned breaches of integrity. As of 6 January 2020, the PNF 
had 17 magistrates, in addition to five specialised assistants and 15 registry officials. This has 
been  considered  insufficient  and  GRECO  has  advised  that  the  National  Financial 
Prosecutior’s office be provided with additional staff. Furthermore, GRECO advised that its 
independence from the executive be ensured with additional guarantees on its transmission to 
the  Government  of  information  concerning  ongoing  proceedings  against  persons  with  top 
executive functions in order to preserve the integrity of investigations.49 

Public  interest  judicial  agreements  (CJIP)  provide  an  alternative  to  prosecution  in 
France. This instrument can be implemented after a preliminary inquiry making it possible to 
prevent,  through  a  compliance  programme  carried  out  under  the  control  of  the  AFA,  the 
repetition  of  corruption  offences  committed  by  a  legal  person.  Eleven  CJIPs  have  been 
concluded to date, including six on corruption.50  

Companies  of  a  certain  size  are  under  the  obligation  to  set  up  anti-corruption 
programmes.  Managers  of  companies  and  public  establishments  of  an  industrial  or 
commercial nature with at least 500 employees and a turnover of more than EUR 100 million 
are under the obligation to put in place measures to prevent and detect acts of corruption or of 
trading  in  influence  committed  in  France  or  abroad.  This  includes  the  commission  of  such 
acts  in  subsidiaries  and  controlled  companies.51  State  administrations,  local  authorities  and 
their  public  establishments  and  semi-public  companies,  as  well  as  associations  and 
foundations recognised as being of public utility are also required to implement measures to 
prevent and detect acts of corruption and other breaches of integrity.52  

A  consolidated  regime  for  whistleblower  protection  has  been  put  in  place.  Since  2007, 
several  mechanisms  have  been  put  in  place  in  specific  sectors,  including  for  corruption, 
damage to the environment and public health. With the adoption of the Sapin II law in 2016, 
a general regime has been established for the protection of whistleblowers in the public and 
private sectors.53 

Provisions  are  broadly  in  place  to  regulate  lobbying  and  ‘revolving  doors’.  The  High 
Authority  for  the  Transparency  of  Public  Life  is  tasked  with  assisting  the  public 
administration  in  the  regulation  of  ’revolving  doors’.  The  law  on  the  transformation  of  the 
civil service54 merges the Ethics Commission of the civil service55 with the High Authority 

48   Law 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016, article 22 created, in article 41-1-2 of the Code of procedure criminal, 
a  procedure  which  allows  the  public  prosecutor  to  conclude  a  judicial  agreement  of  public  interest  with  a 
legal person challenged or under investigation for corruption, trading in influence, laundering of tax fraud or 
for related offenses. 

49   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round - Evaluation Report, para. 136. 
50   In  January  2020  a  CJIP  with  Airbus  has  been  concluded  (bribery  of  foreign  public  officials  and  private 

briber) with a fine of EUR 2,083,137,455 paid to the state. 

51   Art. 17, Law 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016.  
52   The AFA is responsible for monitoring compliance with this obligation. Administrative sanctions, including 
penalties up to EUR 200,000 for natural persons and up to EUR 1 million for legal persons, are provided for 
in the event of default. 

53   Input from France for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 20.  
54   Law 2019-828 of 6 August 2019.  

7 

 
 
                                                 
for the Transparency of Public Life (HATVP). The HATVP provides an opinion prior to the 
recruitment  for  a  high-level  public  position  of  a  person  formerly  employed  in  the  private 
sector on which the recruitment will depend. Before the appointment of any member of the 
Government and in relation to the person whose appointment is envisaged, the President of 
the  Republic  may  request  from  the  President  of  the  HATVP  information  indicating,  on  the 
date of the request and taking into account the information available to the HATVP, whether 
this person is in a situation that may constitute a conflict of interest, as well as the measures 
necessary to prevent or take action immediately to end this conflict of interest. France has an 
open  register  of  lobbyists,  while  some  organisations,  such  as  religious  ones,  are  excluded 
from the obligation to register. GRECO has noted however the need to ensure a full accuracy 
of the registry, as only those lobbying organisations initiating the contact with senior officials 
are  required  to  be  registered.56  The  HATVP  provides  information  regarding  interest  groups 
recorded in the register set up after the adoption of the Sapin II law, in open data format.57 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

France  has  a  tradition  of  freedom  of  expression  and  information  as  well  as  pluralism  and 
independence of the media, which are enshrined in the constitution and guaranteed through 
specific sectoral legislation, enforced by the independent media regulator. The transparency 
of media ownership is defined by law. The same holds for independence of the media, which 
traditionally enjoys a strong protection.  

The  independence  of  the  media  regulator  in France  is  guaranteed by  law.  The  Conseil 
Supérieur  de  l'Audiovisuel  (CSA)  is  an  independent  administrative  authority  established  in 
1989.58 The seven members of the CSA are nominated by decree for a non-renewable, six-
year mandate. Its president is nominated by the President of the Republic, and three members 
are nominated by each of the two Parliamentary chambers. A member can only be suspended 
or  dismissed  due  to  incompetence,  unsuitability  for  the  position  fulfilled  or  due  to  other 
compelling  reasons  related  to  the  person  concerned.  General  provisions  are  in  place  to 
minimise  interference  from  the  media  sector  and  to  prohibit  taking  instructions  from  other 
public  authorities.59  While  the  budget  of  the  regulator  is  confirmed  by  the  Parliament,  its 
financial  and  human  resources  are  at  the  discretion  of  the  regulator,  underpinning  its 
independent status. In order to ensure a proper and responsible use of resources, the regulator 
needs to present its financial report annually to the Government and to the Parliament. The 
CSA  has  the  power  to  issue  sanctions,  which  may  be  challenged  in  court.  The  statutory 
obligation  to  publish  the  agendas  and  decisions  of  the  council  meetings  contributes  to  the 
high transparency of the CSA’s activities. The risk to the independence of the CSA is very 
low according to the MPM 2020. In addition to the CSA, the French Journalistic Council60 
was established in 2019 with the aim of contributing to respect for deontological standards. It 
is  a  self-regulatory  body,  composed  of  representatives  of  journalists,  publishers  and  the 
public.  Based  on  a  complaint  or  on  its  own  initiative,  the  Council  can  offer  mediation 
between the parties concerned or can issue opinions, where needed. 

55   Commission de déontologie de la fonction publique. 
56   Greco Fifth Evaluation Round – Preventing Corruption and Promoting Integrity. 
57   HATVP, public registry. 
58   Law 89-25 of 17 January 1989.   
59   Law 2017-55 of 20 January 2017.  
60   Conseil de déontologie journalistique et de médiation. 

8 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
The  rules  on  transparency  of  media  ownership  require  companies  to  make  certain 
ownership information public. Companies are legally required to disclose their three largest 
owners to the public.61 In addition, they are obliged to notify the CSA when the ownership or 
control  in  a  radio  or  TV  company  reaches  the  threshold  of  10%  or  more.62  The  CSA 
publishes  the  information  on  the  capital  structure  of  publishers  on  its  website,63  and  is 
consulted by the competition authority in case of media ownership developments, for which it 
assesses both direct and indirect owners of the media.64  

The allocation of state advertising is regulated by the Public Procurement Law and the 
Law on the Government Information Service.65 According to the Media Pluralism Monitor 
(MPM) 2020, the allocation of state advertising is split throughout different types of media 
and the corresponding risk indicator on state regulation of resources and support to the media 
sector66  shows  minimal  risk.  The  CSA  is  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  the  political 
coverage rules in the audiovisual sector, ensuring a fair allocation of airtime during political 
debates. This information is shared, on a monthly basis, with both chambers of the Parliament 
guaranteeing a good level of transparency and control.  

An  established  legal  framework  and  the  presence  of  a  plurality  of  players  minimise 
risks for political control over the media.67 For example, legal provisions in this area relate 
to the declaration of conflict of interest for public officials68 and related safety mechanisms 
within  the  CSA,  which  prohibit  Council  Members  from  holding  a  function  in  a  media 
company.69  Media  are  also  obliged  to  have  a  deontological  charter  and  to  establish  a 
committee for accuracy, independence, and pluralism of the information and programmes.70 
The  MPM  2020  registers  a  low  risk  for  political  control  over  public  or  private  media  in 
France. 

The editorial freedom of journalists is guaranteed by the application of the ‘conscience 
clause’71 and the ‘termination clause’.72 The relevant provision of the Labour Code allows 
journalists who have a contract with their employer to terminate their contract without notice 
if  their  work  threatens  their  moral  standards  without  losing  social  benefits.  To  a  certain 
extent, this prevents editorial pressure on journalists. However, this safeguard does not apply 
to non-contractual journalists. Journalists have the statutory right not to reveal their sources. 
Derogations from this right exist for reasons of national security. Several stakeholders report 
that journalists face pressure and intimidation to reveal their sources.73 Such behaviour could 

61   Law no. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 as amended by Law no. 2004-669 of 9 July 2004. 
62   Law no. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 as amended by Law no. 2004-669 of 9 July 2004, Article 38. 
63   CSA, Information on publishers.  
64   It should be recalled in this regard that the revised AVMSD encourages Member States to adopt legislative 
measures  providing  that  media  service  providers  under  their  jurisdiction  make  accessible  information 
concerning their ownership structure, including the beneficial owners. 

65   Ordinance 2018-1074 of 26 November 2018 and Decree 2000-1027 of 18 October 2000.  
66   The  indicator  “State  regulation  of  resources  and  support  to  the  media  sector”  includes  direct  and  indirect 

aids, such as direct subsidies, tax and social security reductions.  

67   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor. 
68   Art. 9, Law 2017-55 of 20 January 2017.  
69   Art. 5, Law 86-1067 of 30 September 1986.  
70   Comité relatif à l’honnêteté, à l’indépendance et au pluralisme de l’information et des programmes. 
71   Art. L7112-5 3°, Labour Code.  
72   Art. L7112-5 1°, Labour Code. 
73   European Network of National Human Rights Institutions – The rule of law in the European Union, p. 103.  

9 

 
 
                                                 
affect the daily work of journalists and lead to a chilling effect.74 Defamation is considered a 
criminal  offence  and  imprisonment  is  among  the  possible  sanctions  (when  defamation  is 
related to racial or ethnic origin).  

The legal framework provides measures for physical safety of journalists, but threats to 
journalists are increasing. The authorities indicate that there is no specific provision in the 
law  concerning  the  safety  of  journalists  and  that  journalists  are  protected  as  any  other 
citizen.75  In  recent  years,  some  cases  of  physical  threats  and  attacks  by  state  and  non-state 
actors  have  been  reported,  especially  during  the  various  demonstrations  in  2019.76  This  is 
coupled with an increased number of online attacks and threats, where perpetrators can easily 
remain  anonymous.  In  2019  and  2020,  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to  promote  the 
protection of journalism and safety of journalists published 19 alerts concerning France. They 
related  in  particular  to  attacks  on  physical  safety,  harassment  of  journalists  and  defamation 
charges.  In  view  of  evidence  of  such  attacks  and  the  fact  that  the  protection  of  journalistic 
sources is reported to be put “in danger” on several occasions,77 the MPM 2020 registered a 
medium risk in the area of journalists’ protection standards. Stakeholders also report concerns 
about an increase of attacks on journalists, in particular during demonstrations.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

France has a semi-presidential system of government, with a President directly elected by the 
people  and  a  Prime  Minister  who  is  accountable  to  Parliament.  The  bicameral  Parliament 
consists of the General Assembly and the Senate. Legislative proposals can originate from the 
Government  or  from  members  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament.  The  Constitutional  Council 
scrutinises the constitutionality of laws, before or after their adoption. Independent authorities 
play an important role in the system of checks and balances.  

Impact  assessments  and  stakeholder  consultations  are  frequently  conducted  in  the 
legislative process. Draft legislation originating from the Government is subject to an impact 
assessment and submitted to the Council of State for an advisory opinion. Furthermore, the 
authorities regularly consult stakeholders in the preparation of legislation.78 Such consultation 
is mandatory for legislation in certain fields.79 Open consultations for the public at large may 
also  be  organised.  Recently,  a  new  Citizens  Convention  on  Climate  united  150  randomly 
selected citizens to discuss climate change and prepare draft laws to address it. Subsequently, 
the  President  decided  to  submit  146  out  of  the  149  proposals  to  the  Government,  to 
Parliament or to a referendum. This recent initiative provides an innovative way of engaging 
citizens in the legislative process.  

Several  independent  authorities  contribute  to  safeguarding  fundamental  rights.  The 
independent  Commission  Nationale  Consultative  des  Droits  de  l’Homme  (CNCDH)  is  the 
National  Human  Rights  Institution  accredited  with  A-status  by  the  Global  Alliance  of 
National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). The composition of the CNCDH ensures a 

74   Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists,  Case  No. 
43/2019:  “Three  Journalists  Summoned  for  Compromising  National  Defense  Classification”,  Category 
“Other acts having chilling effects on media freedom”. 

75   Information received in the context of the virtual country visit. 
76   Reporters without Borders, Country profile: France.   
77   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor.  
78   OECD, Indicators of regulatory policy and governance 2019: France, p. 2.  
79   Art. 1, the Labour Code.  

10 

 
 
                                                 
diverse  representation  of  organisations  active  in  the  field  of  human  rights.80  Its  mandate 
includes  scrutinising  the  authorities’  compliance  with  fundamental  rights  standards  and 
providing  advice  in  this  regard.  The  GANHRI  Sub-committee  on  Accreditation  (SCA) 
encouraged  the  CNCDH  to  continue  to  broaden  its  activities  in  relation  to  its  protection 
mandate,  including  advocating  for  legislative  amendments  to  make  this  mandate  explicit.81 
The SCA also encouraged the CNCDH to continue to strengthen its cooperation with other 
national human rights entities such as the Defender of Rights. This constitutionally enshrined 
body  is  another  key  institution  in  the  system  of  checks  and  balances,  which  is  tasked  with 
protecting  citizens’  rights  in  their  relations  with  state  authorities  and  can  be  seized  by  any 
natural  or  legal  person.  The  Defender  of  Rights  is  competent  to  conduct  investigations, 
mediate,  issue  recommendations  and  make  proposals  for  legal  reforms.  Recently,  the 
Defender  expressed  criticism  on  the  authorities’  lack  of  follow-up  to  a  European  Court  of 
Human Rights judgment on the non-enforcement of a domestic judicial decision.82  

An  emergency  regime  was  introduced  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and 
measures adopted were subject to scrutiny of the courts. The law to tackle the COVID-19 
pandemic  adopted  in  March  introduced  a  new  emergency  regime  specifically  tailored  to 
health  emergencies,  and  separate  from  the  pre-existing  emergency  regimes.83  The  ‘state  of 
health emergency’ allowed the Government to adopt a range of measures by decree in order 
to  address the  COVID-19 pandemic, such  as  limiting  the free  movement  of the population. 
The CNCDH expressed criticism on a number of these measures,84 and many of them were 
contested in the context of legal proceedings. The Constitutional Council and the Council of 
State  censured  a  number  of  the  measures,  including  the  general  obligation  to  obtain 
authorisation  for  demonstrations  and  certain  provisions  relating  to  the  collection  of  data  in 
light  of  COVID-19.85  The  Constitutional  Council  validated  the  law  prolonging  the  state  of 
health emergency.86  

Recent initiatives aim to foster the landscape for civil society. While France is considered 
to  have  a  narrowed  civil  society  landscape,87  the  recent  introduction  of  the  digital  tool 
‘Association Account’88 seeks to facilitate the interaction between associations and the public 
authorities,  in  particular  as  regards  applying  for  subsidies.  The  Government  also  seeks  to 
foster the development of civil society associations through a dedicated fund.89 

80   The CNCDH is composed of 64 members: representatives of the main NGOs active in the field of human 

rights, representatives of the main trade union confederations and other experts.  

81   GANHRI: SCA (2019), GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation Report – March 2019.  
82   Letter of 1 July 2019 by the Defender of Rights to the Council of Europe, Department for the Execution of 

Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.  

83   Articles 16 and 36, French Constitution, and Law 55-385 of 3 April 1955.  
84   CNCDH (2020), Opinion on the state of health emergency and the rule of law; Defender of Rights (2020), 
Letter  to  the  Presidents  of  the  Senate  and  the  National  Assembly  on  the  law  extending  the  state  of  health 
emergency.    

85   Decision  2020-800  DC  of  the  Constitutional  Council  of  11  May  and  Decisions  nos.  441257,  441263  and 

441384 of the Council of State of 6 July 2020. 

86   Even if certain of its provisions were censured, see Decision 2020-800 of the Constitutional Council of 11 

May. 

87   See  the  rating  given  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed.  

88   Compte association.  
89   Input from France to the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order.*  

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law Report 

can be found at (COM website). 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.  

CIVICUS, Monitor tracking civic space: France. https://monitor.civicus.org/country/france/.  

CNCDH (2020), Opinion on the state of health emergency and the rule of law.  

Constitutional Council, decision of 11 May 2020, on the law extending the state of health emergency 

and supplementing its provisions, decision no. 2020-800 DC.  

Constitutional Council, decision of 3 July 2020, M. Sofiane A. and others, decision no. 2020-851/852.  

Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists: France. 

https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/france.  

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2016),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2016)4  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists 
and other media actors.  

Council  of  State,  judgments  of  6  July  2020,  on  the  obligation  to  obtain  an  authorization  before 

organizing an event, decision nos. 441257, 441263, 441384.  

Court of Cassation, judgment of 26 May 2020, no. 974 (20-81.910). 

CSA,  information  on  publishers.  https://www.csa.fr/Reguler/Espace-juridique/Les-relations-du-CSA-

avec-les-editeurs/Convention-des-editeurs.  

Defender of Rights (2020), Letter to the Presidents of the Senate and the National Assembly on the 

law extending the state of health emergency.  

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Eurobarometer:  perceived  independence  of  the 

national justice system in the EU among the general public. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 

towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

European Commission (2020), The EU Justice Scoreboard.   

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 9 April 2015, Tchokontio Happi v. France, application 

no. 65829/12. 

French Government (2020), Input from France for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI): Sub-Committee on Accreditation 

(SCA) (2019), GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation Report – March 2019.  

GRECO (2018), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on France on preventing corruption and 
promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. 

GRECO  (2018),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Compliance  Report  on  France  on  corruption 

prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

High  Authority  for  the  Transparency  of  Public  Life  –  HATVP  (2019),  Activity  report  of  2018. 

https://www.hatvp.fr/rapports_activite/rapport_2018/#popup3.  

High  Authority 

for 

the  Transparency  of  Public  Life  –  HATVP,  public 

registry 

https://www.hatvp.fr/le-repertoire/.  

12 

 
 
High Council for the Judiciary (2019), Compendium on the Judiciary’s Ethical Obligations.  

Magistrates  Union  (2020),  Automatic  extension  of  provisional  detentions:  after  the  scandal  and  the 
http://www.syndicat-magistrature.org/Prolongation-automatique-des-

nonchalance! 

mess, 
detentions-provisoires-apres-le-scandale-et-le.html.  

Ministry of Justice (2020), Breaches of integrity: statistical elements.  https://www.agence-francaise-

anticorruption.gouv.fr/files/files/Fiche%20atteintes%20à%20la%20probité%20-
%20chiffres%202018.pdf.  

National  Assembly  (2019),  A  new  enthusiasm  for  parliamentary  ethics:  Annual  report  submitted  to 
the President and to the Office of the National Assembly on 14 and 30 January 2019, in accordance 
with  article  80-3  of 
the  National  Assembly.  http://www2.assemblee-
nationale.fr/static/15/deontologue/rapport_activite_300119.pdf.  

the  Rules  of 

OECD (2019), Indicators of regulatory policy and governance Europe 2019: France.  

Paris  Court  of  Appeals  (2020),  Judicial  public  interest  agreement  (CJIP)  concluded  between  the 
National  Financial  Prosecutor  and  the  company  Airbus  SE.  https://www.agence-francaise-
anticorruption.gouv.fr/files/2020-02/20200129%20CJIP%20AIRBUS%20signée.pdf.  

President of the Magistrates Union Katia Dubreuil (2019), letter of 3 December 2019 addressed to the 

Minister of Justice.  

Reporters without Borders, Country profile: France. https://rsf.org/en/france.  

Virtual country visit to France in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to France 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in May and June 2020 with: 

Journalistic Ethics and Mediation Council 

  Anti-Corruption Agency 
  Central Office for Combating Corruption and Tax Offenses 
  High Authority for the Transparency of Public Life  
  High Council for the Audiovisual  
  High Council for the Judiciary 
 
  Ministry of Justice 
  National Consultative Commission on Human Rights 
  National Council of Bar Associations 
  National Financial Prosecutor 
  National Journalists Union 
  Reporters without Borders 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

14