COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: France, 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, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 712 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report     Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report     The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The French justice system continues to undergo a number of reforms aimed at improving its 
quality  and  efficiency.  Long-standing  initiatives  to  strengthen  judicial  independence,  in 
particular  by  reinforcing  the  competences  of  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary,  have  not 
advanced  towards  adoption,  which  would  require  a  qualified  majority  of  the  votes  cast  by 
both  chambers  of  Parliament.  The  resources  devoted  to  the  justice  system  received  a 
significant increase. Projects aimed at achieving full digitalisation of the criminal procedure 
and some aspects of the civil procedure continue to advance. Two new draft laws to reinforce 
trust  in  the  justice  system  cover  issues  such  as  the  professional  secrecy  for  lawyers,  the 
creation  of  disciplinary  courts  for  law  professionals,  and  the  broadcasting  of  hearings.  The 
President of the Republic requested the High Council for the Judiciary to provide an opinion 
on ways to improve the regime for liability and protection of magistrates. 

France  has  continued  to  strengthen  its  institutional  framework  for  fighting  and  preventing 
corruption in the public and private sector. The specialised anti-corruption institutions, such 
as  the  High  Authority  for  the  Transparency  of  Public  Life  and  the  French  Anti-corruption 
Agency,  continue  to  perform  their  duties.  Regulations  for  conflict  of  interest  and  the 
protection  of  whistleblowers  are  in  place.  While  the  lobbying  legislation  in  place  does  not 
cover individuals initiating contact with senior officials, the Government has not put forward 
any  proposal  to  this  end  yet.  Assets  declarations  are  disclosed  and  regularly  verified.  The 
National  Financial  Prosecutor  was  reorganised,  and  continues  to  show  a  robust  record  of 
convictions, also through public interest judicial agreements, including for high-rank officials 
and  large-value  cases.  The  human  resources  of  the  National  Commission  on  Campaign 
Accounts  and  Political  Financing  appear  insufficient  compared  to  its  workload.  Specific 
public procurement actions were introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

France  possesses  a  generally  robust  legal  framework  safeguarding  media  pluralism  and 
freedom. An upcoming legislative change might result in an institutional reorganisation of the 
national media regulatory authority and creation of a single body in charge of audiovisual and 
digital  communication.  Journalists  continue  to  be  exposed  to  different  types  of  threats.  In 
view of the increase in attacks occurring during protests or demonstrations, the Government 
aims  to  implement  measures  to  improve  the  communication  between  journalists  and  police 
forces  during  such  events.  French  authorities  envisaged  a  comprehensive  recovery  plan  for 
media  outlets  to  mitigate  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  as  well  as  to  support  the 
transformation of the media sector.   

Impact  assessments  and  stakeholder  consultations  are  frequent  in  the  legislative  process. 
However, the Government has significantly increased fast-track adoption procedures, limiting 
parliamentary debate on some sensitive draft laws. The emergency regime for the COVID-19 
pandemic ended on 1 June 2021. Other measures affecting fundamental rights were reviewed 
by the Constitutional Council and the Council of State, which rejected a Government request 
to  consider  whether  a  ruling  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  could  be  in  breach  of  the 
principle  of  conferral  and  the  division  of  competences  between  the  EU  and  its  Member 
States.  Independent  authorities  kept  playing  a  very  active  role  in  safeguarding  fundamental 
rights  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  Defender  of  Rights  acknowledged  the  need  to 
improve  the  follow-up  of  its  recommendations  by  national  authorities.  Recent  legislation 
raises concerns as to its potential impact on the landscape for civil society. In particular, the 
new  Law  on  Global  Security  received  strong  criticism  from  stakeholders  and  independent 
authorities, and the Constitutional Council declared some of its provisions unconstitutional, 
in particular the one aimed at protecting the anonymity of police officers on duty. 

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,  half  of  whose  members  are  magistrates  elected  by  their  peers1,  plays  an 
important role in safeguarding judicial independence. It nominates candidates for top judicial 
functions and, as regards the appointment of judges by the Minister of Justice, issues binding 
opinions2. The prosecution service is part of the judiciary, and falls under the authority of the 
Minister  of  Justice3.  The  latter  can  give  general  instructions  on  prosecution  policy  but  is 
barred  from  giving  instructions  in  individual  cases4.  France  participates  in  the  European 
Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO).  Lawyers  are  represented  by  various  bar  associations 
throughout France.  

Independence  

The level of perceived independence is average among both companies and the general 
public5. Among the general population, 57% consider the level of independence of courts to 
be  ‘fairly  or  very  good’,  as  well  as  58%  of  businesses6.  While  the  perceived  level  of 
independence  has  remained  largely  stable  since  2016  for  the  general  population,  it  has 
decreased among companies over the last year7. In both cases, the reason most often invoked 
for the perceived lack of judicial independence is related to interference or pressure from the 
Government and politicians8.  

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.  An  additional  judge 
completes this formation when acting as a disciplinary council. 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. An additional prosecutor 
completes  this  formation  when  acting  as  a  disciplinary  council.  See  also  in  that  regard  Recommendation 
CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 27 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   Prosecutors are currently nominated by the Minister of Justice, following an advisory opinion of the Council.  
3   Art. 5, Ordinance 58-1270 of 22 December 1958.   
4   Art. 1, Law 2013-669 of 25 July 2013.  
5   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%). 

6   While 5% of  the general population and 7% of companies indicate that they perceive the level of judicial 
independence  to  be  ‘very  good’  and  52%  of  the  general  population  and  51%  of  companies  perceive  it  as 
‘fairly  good’,  29%  of  the  general  population  and  26%  of  companies  perceive  the  level  of  judicial 
independence  to  be  ‘fairly  or  very  bad’.  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  2021,  Figures  48  &  50;  Eurobarometer 
survey. 

7   Figures 48 and 50, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
8   Figures 49 and 51, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
The  long-standing  constitutional  reform  to  reinforce  the  competences  of  the  High 
Council  for  the  Judiciary  has  not  advanced9.  The  constitutional  reform10  would  in 
particular  make  the  opinion  of  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  on  the  nomination  of 
candidate-prosecutors  binding  upon  the  executive,  make  the  High  Council  the  competent 
body  to  decide  on  disciplinary  measures  regarding  prosecutors11,  put  an  end  to  the  right  of 
former  Presidents  of  the  Republic  to  become  members  of  the  Constitutional  Council  after 
their  service  and  abolish  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  Republic12.  A  report  on  obstacles  to 
judicial independence established by a parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on 2 September 
202013 stressed the importance to carry out this constitutional reform. The report proposes to 
strengthen  even  further  the  role  of  the  High  Council,  in  particular  by  aligning  fully  the 
disciplinary and appointment rules for prosecutors with those applicable for judges14 and by 
giving  the  High  Council  the  power  to  act  on  its  own  initiative  on  any  issue  related  to  the 
independence of the judiciary15. For the draft constitutional law to advance towards adoption, 
the President would need to convene both chambers of Parliament in Congress16 to vote on it, 
requiring  a  qualified  majority  of  three  fifths  of  the  votes  cast.  The  need  to  strengthen  the 
disciplinary  powers  of  the  High  Council  was  further  highlighted  in  the  context  of 
administrative  investigations  ordered  against  three  prosecutors  of  the  National  Financial 
Prosecutor's Office (PNF) by the Minister of Justice, which are currently pending and could 
lead  to  disciplinary  procedures17.  Three  magistrates’  trade  unions  filed  a  complaint  against 
the  Minister  of  Justice,  invoking  conflicts  of  interests  related  to  his  previous  activity  as  a 
lawyer18. The Court of Justice of the Republic declared the complaint admissible and opened 
a  judicial  investigation  on  13  January  2021.  On  23  February  2021,  the  President  of  the 
Republic submitted to the High Council for the Judiciary a request for an opinion regarding 
both  the  liability  and  protection  of  magistrates.  One  of  the  aims  is  to  make  the  system  of 

9   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France, pp. 1-2. 
10   The constitutional bill was tabled in the National Assembly on 29 August 2019. 
11   Currently, the High Council  for the Judiciary gives a  non-binding opinion on appointments of prosecutors 
proposed  and  on  disciplinary  decisions  by  the  Minister  of  Justice.  However,  in  practice,  the  Minister  of 
Justice  always  follows  this  opinion  and  the  proposed  change  would  enshrine  this  commitment  in  positive 
law.  

12   This special court, composed of six members of the Senate, six members of the National Assembly and three 
judges  of  the  Court  of  Cassation,  is  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. 

13   French  Parliament,  Commission  of  Inquiry  (2020),  Report  on  obstacles  to  judicial  independence, 

https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/15/rapports/cejustice/l15b3296_rapport-enquete. 

14   Thus, the High Council would propose the appointments for heads of prosecution services, instead of only 

giving an opinion on proposals from the Minister of Justice. 

15   Currently, under Art. 65 of the Constitution only the President may seize the Plenum of the High Council for 
an opinion in his role as guarantor of the independence of the Judiciary. This possibility is seldom used and 
the only way for the High Council to act on its own initiative on such matters is to issue communications, 
which are nevertheless devoid of legal value. The High Council issued several communications in 2020 and 
2021, when it perceived threats to the independence of the judiciary or the authority of judicial decisions.  
16   Under Art. 89 of the Constitution, the Congress is the name given to the body created when both houses of 

Parliament meet to vote on revisions to the Constitution or to listen to an address by the President. 

17   Under  Art.  58  and  59-1  of  Order  no.  58-1270  of  22  December  1958,  the  High  Council  only  gives  a  non-
binding opinion on whether or not to sanction prosecutors, and the final decision rests with the Minister of 
Justice.  By  decree  of  23  October  2020,  the  Minister  of  Justice  transferred  to  the  Prime  Minister  the 
competence  to  act  in  cases  in  which  he  was  previously  involved  as  a  lawyer,  but  this  does  not  affect  the 
initial decision to open the administrative investigations against the prosecutors, which are still pending. 
18   Open letter from the Syndicat de la Magistrature and the Union Syndicale des Magistrats, published on 21 

December 2020. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
complaints by litigants more effective to better address cases of professional deficiencies by 
magistrates19.  

Two new draft laws aim at increasing trust in the justice system. On 14 April 2021, the 
Minister of Justice submitted to the Council of Ministers two draft laws to reinforce trust in 
the justice system, which would in particular improve the protection of professional secrecy 
for defence lawyers20, create national disciplinary courts for law professionals, which would 
also be tasked with drafting a code of ethics, and widen the possibility to film and broadcast 
hearings21 to promote the understanding of the justice system among the general public. 

Quality  

Several projects are being  implemented to develop further the digitalisation of justice. 
Despite efforts to improve the level of digitalisation of the justice system22, there is still room 
for  improvement  as  regards  procedural  rules  allowing  digital  technology  in  courts,  use  of 
digital technology and electronic communication tools by courts and prosecution services, as 
well as digital solutions to initiate, conduct and follow proceedings23. In criminal matters, a 
project called “digital criminal procedure” is following its course. Its  aim is to digitalise all 
steps of the procedure, from the registration of a complaint or the finding of an offense to the 
delivery of the judgment and the filing of the court decision, as well as to ease access to the 
file for the parties and law professionals. The implementation of the various tools to digitalise 
communication between all actors in the criminal procedure as well as all documents in the 
file24  started  experimentally  in  2019  in  two  courts  and  will  be  gradually  extended  to  all 
courts25.  In  civil  matters,  the  PORTALIS  programme  aims  to  replace  all  eight  existing 
applications used in courts with a single digital tool and ultimately achieve full digitalisation 
of the civil  procedure  for both  litigants  and justice professionals,  from the application until 
the  service  of  the  court  decision  on  a  secure  portal.  The  first  step  was  achieved  with  the 
launch of a website directed at litigants, which allows to them to lodge applications in some 

19   Since 2011, under Organic Law no. 2010-830 of 22 July 2010, citizens may refer the matter directly to the 
High  Council  if  they  consider  themselves  victims  of  disciplinary  misconduct  on  the  part  of  a  magistrate. 
However, since this possibility exists, very few complaints were declared admissible and even fewer were 
referred to the disciplinary section. Thus, in 2019, of the 324 complaints registered, only 11 were declared 
admissible,  of  which  9  were  rejected.  Only  one  complaint  was  referred  to  the  disciplinary  section.  Many 
complaints  were  declared  manifestly  inadmissible  because  the  litigant  was  trying  to  challenge  the  judicial 
decision itself instead of alleging a professional deficiency or disciplinary misconduct. 

20   The  preliminary  article  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  would  be  completed  in  order  to  affirm  that 
“respect  for  the  professional  secrecy  of  the  defense  is  guaranteed  during  the  proceedings”.  Searches  in  a 
lawyer's  office,  wiretapping  of  his  professional  or  private  line  and  access  to  his  detailed  telephone  bills 
would only be possible if the lawyer is suspected of having committed or attempted to commit an offense. 
21   Currently,  only  trials  of  historical  significance  can  be  filmed.  Under  the  draft  law,  dissemination  of  the 
recordings would only be possible when the case is finally judged. However, before the Council of State and 
the Court of Cassation, the public hearing could be broadcast live with prior consent of the parties. 

22   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France, p. 3. 
23   See figures 40 to 45, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
24   A  so-called  “Digital  Criminal  Office”  will  constitute  the  single  access  point  to  a  series  of  applications 
designed  inter  alia  to  create  and  manage  cases  digitally  and  to  transmit  securely  documents  between  the 
Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Justice as well as to the parties’ lawyers. 

25   In  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  France,  the  French  authorities  stated  that  the  system  should  be 
operational in 30 departments out of 100 during the 1st quarter of 2022. Over the next 18 months, documents 
relating  to  emergency  procedures,  hearings  and  exchanges  between  all  the  actors  involved  in  criminal 
proceedings will gradually be digitalised. Electronic signatures, access to file documents via digital tablets 
for lawyers, and the digitisation of requests to access documents will also be implemented. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
civil matters since 4 January 202126. Similarly, the possibility to submit requests for legal aid 
online, which started in pilot courts in March 2021 and will be gradually rolled out at national 
level,  combined  with  new  harmonised  rules  for  calculating  the  applicants’  resources27,  is 
expected to reduce significantly the time necessary to process such requests. The PORTALIS 
tool will be made operational in 2021 within the labour court, then extended to other courts 
by 2022. 

The  resources  devoted  to  the  justice  system  have  further  increased  significantly  in 
202128. Under the Finance Law for 202129, the Ministry of Justice is thus allocated a budget 
of 12.1 billion euros, or about 2% of total public expenditure, which represents an increase of 
8%  compared  to  the  previous  year  (the  highest  year-on-year  increase  in  over  20  years), 
including  additional  127  million  euros  allocated  to  legal  costs30.  The  Finance  Law  also 
creates 2,450 positions for the justice system, which represents an increase of around 3% for 
a  total  of  around  90,000  positions.  The  budget  for  legal  aid  reached  585  million  euros  in 
2021, a 10% increase allowing to improve the remuneration of lawyers under this regime, in 
particular  for  certain  missions  in  criminal  matters  and  mediation.  A  new  guarantee  of 
remuneration of the lawyer regardless of failures on the part of the applicant for legal aid was 
also  created31.  The  bar  associations  consider  that  compensation  for  lawyers  for  legal  aid 
remains largely insufficient and does not cover the lawyers’ costs32. 

Several  measures  relating  to  the  functioning  of  the  criminal  justice  system  introduced 
during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  were  annulled.  The  Constitutional  Council  declared 
unconstitutional33 the automatic prolongation of the duration of pre-trial detention instituted 
by an Order of 25 March 2020 and implemented during the lockdown until 11 May 2020, due 
to its automatic character and the absence of systematic judicial review of the necessity of the 
extension  within  a  short  deadline,  having  regard  to  the  right  to  individual  liberty.  In  a 
Decision of 5 March 2021, the Council of State also ruled that this automatic extension was 
contrary  to  the  right  to  liberty  enshrined  in  Art.  5  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human 
Rights (ECHR) and that the possibility for the judge in lower criminal courts to impose the 
use  of  videoconferencing  or  communication  by  telephone  infringes  the  right  to  a  fair  trial 
protected by Art. 6 of the ECHR. By Order of 27 November 2020, the Council of State had 
already  suspended  the  use  of  videoconferencing  without  the  consent  of  the  accused  for 

26   On the webpage https://www.justice.fr/, litigants may also lodge an application online before certain courts, 
for instance in family matters. In the future, this possibility will be extended to all civil courts and litigants 
will  be  able  to  follow  the  procedure  and  receive  all  court  documents  online.  The  website  also  provides 
information on procedural rules and competent courts, explanatory notes and documents to be completed, as 
well as the contact details of law professionals such as lawyers. 

27   Since 1 January 2021, under decree no. 2020-1717 of 28 December 2020, the reference tax income is one of 

the criteria, along with assets and savings, for assessing the resources of natural persons. 

28   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France, p. 4. 
29   Law no. 2020-1721 of 29 December 2020 on finances for 2021. 
30   Legal costs are the total costs of a trial. They include not only costs directly related to the trial (e.g. bailiff's 

fees and expert's fees), but also legal fees. 

31   New  Art.  19-1  of  Law  no.  91-647  of  10  July  1991  guarantees  the  appointed  lawyer’s  compensation  for 
certain missions carried out even if the applicant does not send the documents necessary to file the legal aid 
application or does not fulfil the conditions to benefit from legal aid. 

32   See  contribution from the Délégation des Barreaux de France for the 2021 Rule of  Law  Report,  p. 8. The 
unit value for compensation under legal aid was raised from 32 to 34 EUR, significantly below the 40 EUR 
mark suggested in a mission report submitted in August 2020 to the Minister of Justice on the future of the 
lawyer  profession  in  France  by  former  Minister  of  Justice  Dominique  Perben.  Moreover,  mediation  must 
lead to an agreement for the lawyer to obtain compensation under legal aid. 

33   Decision no. 2020-878/879 QPC of 29 January 2021. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
hearings  before  higher  criminal  courts,  on  the  grounds  that  it  constitutes  seriously  and 
manifestly unlawful interference with the rights of defence and the right to a fair trial. 

Efficiency 

Measures  are  being  taken  to  mitigate  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  on  the 
efficiency  of  civil  and  criminal  courts,  but  overall  concerns  remain  with  the  length  of 
procedures.  The  emergency  measures  taken  to  deal  with  the  health  crisis,  in  particular 
between March and May 2020, led to a slowdown in the activity of the courts and an increase 
in  their  caseload.  Thus,  as  of  October  2020,  civil  courts  saw  their  caseload  increased  by 
nearly 43,000 and lower criminal courts by 19,000 cases as compared to the end of 201934. 
The  estimated  time  needed  to  resolve  litigious  civil  and  commercial  cases  continued 
increasing, with an average time of 432 days in 201935. On the other hand, the clearance rate 
for litigious civil and commercial cases improved slightly to 99.7% for 201936, but this figure 
precedes  the  effects  of  the  pandemic.  In  order  to  address  the  challenges  faced  by  criminal 
courts,  a  new  law  of  8  April  2021  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  local  justice  and  criminal 
proceedings  extends the alternative measures to  prosecution, extends the scope of measures 
applicable as part of a composition pénale37 and permits out-of-court execution of community 
service. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

Authorities  involved  in  the  fight  against  corruption  include  the  Anti-Corruption  Agency 
(which  prepares  the  multiannual  anti-corruption  plan  and  supports  private  and  public  legal 
persons on how to prevent and detect corruption), the High Authority for the Transparency of 
Public life (responsible for ensuring the integrity of public institutions and officials), and the 
Central  Office  for  Combating  Corruption  and  Tax  Offences  (a  special  police  for  the 
investigation of economic crimes, including corruption and money laundering). The National 
Financial Prosecutor is competent for the investigation of high-level corruption cases.  

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the  public  sector  remains  relatively  low.  In  the  2020  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by 
Transparency  International,  France  scores  69/100  and  ranks  8th  in  the  European  Union  and 
23th globally38. This perception has been relatively stable39 over the past five years40. 

34   Input from France for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 24. 
35   Figure 6, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
36   Figure 11, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
37   This alternative to prosecution created by the law of 23 June 1999 allows the public prosecutor to propose to 
a person admitting to having committed an offence one or more measures to be executed within a specified 
time limit.  

38   Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2020, pp. 2-3. The level of perceived corruption is 
categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public  sector 
corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-50), 
high (scores below 50). 

39   In 2015 the score was 70, while, in 2020, the score is 69. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

40   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

6 

 
 
                                                 
The national anticorruption plan for 2020-2022 is being implemented. The plan focuses 
on the following actions41: i) optimising data analysis to improve understanding and detection 
of  corruption;  ii)  training  and  awareness-raising  for  public  employees;  iii-a)  supporting 
ministries  to  establish  anti-corruption  programmes;  iii-b)  support  major  municipalities  and 
their  establishments  to  establish  anti-corruption  programmes;  iii-c)  promoting  integrity  in 
sports organisations and events; iii-d) supporting businesses in implementing the French anti-
corruption framework and encouraging them to make anti-corruption compliance a means of 
boosting  their  competitiveness;  iii-e)  enhancing  corruption  penalties;  and  iv)  enhancing 
France’s international action42. 

The  prosecution  and  adjudication  of  corruption  cases  show  positive  results,  including 
for  cases  involving  high-ranking  officials.  National  legislation  criminalises  all  forms  of 
corruption  offences  (active,  passive,  domestic  and/or  foreign  bribery)  in  the  public  and 
private sector, including in the field of sports and influence peddling in the public sector. The 
Central  Office  for  Combating  Corruption  and  Tax  Offences (OCLCIFF)  is  a  special  police 
for  the  investigation  of  economic  crimes,  including  corruption  and  money  laundering.  The 
Office has 86 officials, divided into units for financial data analysis, research and collection 
of evidence43. In 2020, the office confiscated EUR 166 million in illegal  assets44. However, 
recruiting, training (sometimes for three years) and retaining highly skilled human resources, 
in  particular the financial  data analysts and experienced investigators, represent  a challenge 
for the Office45. 

The  National  Financial  Prosecutor’s  Office  has  been  reorganised  in  order  to  improve 
effectiveness, including through supplementary resources and increased independence. 
In  2020,  the  National  Financial  Prosecutor  (PNF)  has  established  a  special  squad  for  the 
research  of  evidence  through  open-source  databanks46.  In  2020,  the  PNF  initiated  123  new 
cases,  leading  to  21  indictments,  for  an  estimated  aggregated  value  of  EUR  2  billion,  and 
with  65  individuals  involved47.  There  have  been  a  total  of  12  public  interest  judicial 
agreements (CJIPs) concluded to date48. In response to the recommendations of the Group of 
States against Corruption of the Council of Europe (GRECO)49, for 2021 the PNF envisages 

41   Agence Française Anticorruption (AFA) (2020), Anticorruption Plan for 2020-2022, p. 13. 
42   AFA, Activity Report, p. 11. 
43   There are five cybercrime investigators,  who  search, collect and analyse digital data  through a  specific IT 
tool  (called  LION).  Until  January  2021,  the  OCLCIFF  has  treated  285  cases,  including  138  cases  of  tax 
fraud, 55 cases of economic crimes, and 92 cases of corruption. Input from France for the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report. 

44   Notably: EUR 106  million  from tax  fraud cases (including a single case  worth EUR 83  million), EUR 20 
million from cases of economic crimes and EUR 38 million from cases of corruption). Input from France for 
the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

45   Information received in the context of the country visit to France. 
46   Information received in the context of the country visit to France. 
47   Involving for example a former President of the Republic, a former Minister, and mayors. Input from France 

for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

48   Namely seven cases related to corruption, and five concerning tax fraud. Information received in the context 
of the country visit to France. Each case includes a fine for public interest, whose aggregated value (for the 
past  twelve  CJIPs)  amounts  to  a  bit  more  than  EUR  3  billion.  All  fines  have  been  paid.  In  addition,  five 
cases included compliance programs, which are at the expenses of the implementing company, and under the 
supervision of the AFA, through compliance audits conducted for a period of three years. Input from France 
for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

49   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round - Evaluation Report, recommendations concerning the need to provide the 

National Financial Prosecutor’s office with additional staff. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
to  hire  additional  prosecutors50.  However,  regarding  the  other  recommendations  of 
GRECO51, no relevant actions were reported.  

The Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA) prepares the multiannual anti-corruption plan and 
monitors  the  implementation  of  preventive  measures  in  public  (national  or  local)  and 
private  entities52.  In  September  2020,  the  AFA  published  a  study  analysing  the  anti-
corruption  programmes  of  private  companies53  and  a  practical  guide  for  companies  in  the 
area of gifts and hospitality54. In 2021, after a public consultation55, the AFA issued a second 
generation  of  recommendations56  (the  first  set  was  issued  in  2017),  on  developing  and 
implementing  a  compliance  mechanisms  for  legal  persons57.  The  technical  and  financial 
resources  available  to  the  AFA  are  considered  appropriate  by  its  management58.  While  the 
officials  working  at  the  AFA  have  experience  both  in  the  public  sector  (mostly  seconded 
investigators, prosecutors, but also financial data analysts) and in the private sector, the size 
and high turnover of its staff appear to be a challenge59. 

The  High  Authority  for  the  Transparency  of  Public  Life  (HATVP) continues 
monitoring the implementation of the integrity rules for public officials, including those 
on  asset  disclosures60.  The  HATVP is  responsible  for  ensuring  the  integrity  of  public 
institutions  and  officials.  Its  tasks  includes  the  verifications  of  asset  and  interest 
declarations. In  2020,  the  HATVP  received  17  713  declarations  of  interest  and  assets  from 
public officials, and 825 from ministers and members of Parliament. While the declarations 
of  officials  and  ministers  are  public,  those  of  members  of  Parliament  are  available  only  on 
request61.  The  control  performed  in  2020  by  the  HATVP  indicates  that  about  53%  of 
declarations  were  compliant,  22%  prompted  minor  clarification  requests,  and  25%  had 
substantial  deficiencies62.  In  2020,  ten  files  were  transmitted  to  the  National  Financial 
Prosecutor’s Office, for possible criminal follow-up. The HATVP advises institutional ethic 

50   The plan is to reach a total of 18 prosecutors, which will work with the existing supporing personnel, of six 
specialised  assistants,  and  one  legal  assistant.  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 
France. 

51   GRECO  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  -  Evaluation  Report,  para.  136,  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. 

52   Law no. 2016-1691 on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life. 
53   An anonymous online questionnaire addressed to all companies, regardless of their turnover, workforce and 
activities, has been sent to the professional federations for dissemination to their members. Information was 
collected from 2000 companies. AFA, National diagnosis on anti-corruption systems in companies. 

54   AFA, Practical guide for companies in the area of gifts and hospitality. 
55   A  public  consultation  was  conducted  from  16  October  to  16  November  2020,  in  which  around  40 
contributors  participated,  including  13  associations,  seven  business  federations,  ten  law  firms  and 
consultants, five central administrations and two non-governmental organisations. 

56   AFA, Recommendations, Official Journal of 12 January 2021. 
57   The  recommendations  indicate  good  practices  for  implementing  risk-assessment  and  mapping,  with 

measures of corruption risk prevention, detection and remedial. 
58   Information received in the context of the country visit to France. 
59   This  opinion  was  expressed  by  the  Director  of  the  AFA,  during  a  hearing  with  representatives  of  the 
National 
http://videos.assemblee-
nationale.fr/video.10597957_60656dae755b9.lutte-contre-la-corruption--m-charles-duchaine-directeur-de-l-
agence-francaise-anticorruption-1-avril-2021).  On  the  other  hand,  the  rotation  of  staff  facilitates  the 
dissemination of a culture of compliance between the public and the private sector.  Information received in 
the context of the country visit to France. 

Assembly, 

available 

(video 

April 

2021 

in 

at 

60   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France, p. 6. 
61   See Rule of Law Report 2020. 
62   Information received in the context of the country visit to France. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
officials (responsables déontologues) supporting them in ethics training and education63. The 
HATVP also issues more general ethics guidelines, and it may sign agreements with NGOs, 
to promote transparency64.  

The HATVP has proposed to amend the lobbying legislation. The HATVP is responsible 
for  the  management  of  the  lobbying  register.  In  November  2020,  the  rate  of  declarations 
received  was  at  90%  of  registered  lobbyists65.  In  2020,  the  HATVP  suggested  that  the 
lobbying  legislation  should  be  amended,  as  recommended  by  GRECO,  in  order  to  include 
lobbying  individuals  (and  not  only  the  organisations)  initiating  the  contact  with  senior 
officials66.  No  proposal  has  been  put  forward  by  the  Government  to  date67.  In  2020,  the 
HATVP’s  mandate  was  extended  to  oversee  the  implementation  of  the  rules  on 
incompatibilities  and  revolving  doors68.  On  average,  10%  of  the  controlled  cases  reveal  an 
incompatibility.  In  2020,  the  HATVP  issued  a  decision  of  incompatibility  for  a  former 
adviser to a ministerial cabinet69.  

The human resources of the National Commission on Campaign Accounts and Political 
Financing (CNCCFP) appear insufficient compared to its workload. The CNCCFP is the 
body  that  audits  both  political  parties  and  electoral  campaigns’  accounting  reports70.  The 
election  department  comprises  nine  magistrates  (seconded  by  the  Court  of  Audit  and  other 
judiciary institutions), in addition to 58 assisting officials. In 2020, 2 200 cases were audited, 
with the support of 143 external advisers71. On average, up to 4% of the election campaigns’ 
reports  have  a  problem  of  accounting.  The  department  for  auditing  political  parties  has  six 
officials72 and, given the workload, providing accurate and detailed accounting reports within 
the procedural deadline of six months from the election day remains a challenge. 

The Ethics Commissioner of the National Assembly monitors the implementation of the 
ethics  rules  for  Members  of  Parliament.  Ethics  rules  for  members  of  Parliament  are 

63   In 2020, the HATVP has issued 150 specific opinions at the request of ethics officers. They are published on 

the webpage of the HATVP, https://www.hatvp.fr/consulter-les-deliberations-et-avis/. 

64   Once the agreement is signed, the NGO can request the advice of the HATVP on matters related to conflict 
of  interest  and  asset  declarations,  webpage  of  the  HATVP,  https://www.hatvp.fr/la-haute-autorite/la-
diffusion-dune-culture-de-lintegrite/promouvoir-la-
transparence/#:~:text=Pour%20solliciter%20l'agr%C3%A9ment%2C%20l,conditions%20requises%20pour
%20%C3%AAtre%20agr%C3%A9%C3%A9.  On  the  other  hand,  for  an  association  to  have  judicial  locus 
standi  and  intervene  as  civil  party  in  a  criminal  procedure  for  a  corruption  case,  it  must  be  officially 
authorised by the Ministry of Justice.  

65   Information received in the context of the country visit to France. 
66   Greco Fifth Evaluation Round – Preventing Corruption and Promoting Integrity. Recommendation to modify 

the register for lobbying. 

67   Information received in the context of the country visit to France. 
68   The  HATVP  provides  an  opinion  prior  to  the  recruitment  for  a  high-level  public  position  of  a  person 
formerly employed in the private sector, which will determin the recruitment. 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. See 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

69   Information received in the context of the country visit to France. 
70   For the latter, this means any funds received or spent during the electoral campaigns. 
71   External advisers are to be selected from a permanent list of about 200 practitioners,  with fiscal and audit 

background. Information received in the context of the country visit to France. 

72   In  2019,  around  511  accounts  of  political  parties  were  audited,  and  findings  show  mostly  minor  formal 
irregularities. In case an irregularity is found, the Commission may either ask clarification to the auditee or, 
in  case  of  any  suspicions  of  crime  or  electoral  fraud,  forward  the  file  to  the  prosecutors  or  the  electoral 
judge, respectively. Information received in the context of the country visit to France. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
included  in  the  regulation  of  the  National  Assembly73,  as  well  as  in  a  code  of  ethics74. 
Members of Parliament in a situation of conflict of interest are to inform the Bureau of the 
National Assembly  and  to  withdraw  from participating in a conflicting vote. Any donation, 
sponsorship and travel allowances received by a Member of Parliament must be declared and 
then published on the transparency page of the National Assembly. In case of suspicions of 
any breach of ethics rules, the Ethics Commissioner may bring a case to the attention of the 
President of the Assembly, who may then forward the file to the Bureau of the Assembly, for 
further consideration and possible action75. 

The  Anti-Corruption  Agency  (AFA)  issued  recommendations  on  the  development  of 
mechanisms  for  whistleblowers.  In  light  of  the  existing  regulations  for  whistleblower 
protection76, the recommendations issued in January 202177 aim at helping public and private 
sector entities to prevent and detect bribery, influence peddling, extortion by public officials, 
illegal  taking  of  interest,  misappropriation  of  public  funds  and  favouritism.  Whistleblowers 
can submit their complaints first through the channel existing within their company or  their 
public administration and, under specific circumstances, the complaint may then be submitted 
to AFA78. The Defender of Rights provides support and advice to whistleblowers79, including 
a guide. The Defender of Rights has one full-time officer for the counselling unit. Since 2017, 
on average the Defender of Rights has dealt with 80 whistleblower reports per year, while in 
2020,  a  decrease  of  almost  20%  was  registered80.  The  lack  of  proper  financial  and  legal 
support81 is a challenge for the practical protection of whistleblowers. 

Specific  anti-corruption  guidance  was  issued  in  the  area  of  public  procurement  to 
mitigate risks during the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2020, the Anti-Corruption Agency 
and the State Procurement Directorate (DAE) published guidelines on “Managing the risk of 
corruption in the public procurement cycle”82. For each phase of the public procurement, the 
guidelines indicate the associated risks of corruption, suggest mitigation measures, and give 
recommendations on how to develop organisational risk mapping and anticorruption codes of 
conduct. 

73   Articles 80 and following of the Regulation of the National Assembly. 
74   Code of deontology of 2019.   
75   The  Bureau  of  the  Assembly  is  a  committee  of  22  MPs,  competent  for  the  internal  functioning  of  the 
National Assembly. Within the Bureau, there is a delegation of five members dedicated to the regulation of 
lobbying.  Summaries  of  the  meetings  of  the  Bureau  are  published  online  at  https://www2.assemblee-
nationale.fr/15/le-bureau-de-l-assemblee-nationale. 

76   As reported in the 2020 Rule of law report, 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. 

77   AFA, Recommendations on the development of mechanisms for whistleblowers. 
78   Written information received from the Ministry of Justice. 
79   The  advice  aims  at  understanding  the  legalities  of  the  whistleblowing  procedures,  or  the  requirements 

needed in order to acquire whistleblower protection. 

80   The  cases  concern  both  the  public  and  private  sectors,  equally.  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the 

country visit to France. 

81   Information received in the context of the country visit to France. See Opinion no. 20-12 of the Defender of 
Rights  of  16  December  2020,  Recommendation  13,  and  2020  Annual  Activity  Report  of  the  Defender  of 
Rights,  p.  89  “In  order  to  break  the  isolation  of  whistleblowers,  better  protection  and  exemplary  support 
measures must be provided, in particular by allowing them to benefit from direct financial aid through the 
creation of a support fund and the granting of legal aid without any means testing, based where appropriate, 
on a certification issued by the Defender of Rights' office”. 

82   AFA, Guidelines on managing the risk of corruption in the public procurement cycle.  

10 

 
 
                                                 
III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The  French  Constitution  safeguards  freedom  of  expression  and  information  as  well  as 
pluralism  and  independence  of  the  media.  These  principles  are  further  enshrined  in  the 
sectoral  legislation,  enforced  by  the  independent  media  regulator.  The  French  media 
pluralism  framework  secures  both  ‘external  pluralism’,  defined  in  terms  of  the  plurality  of 
media  actors  as  well  as  ‘internal  pluralism’,  defined  in  terms  of  equity  and  diversity  of 
voices. French legal system also provides for specific rules concerning transparency of media 
ownership83.  France  has  adopted  several  acts  aiming  to  transpose  the  revised  AVMSD  and 
three additional decrees are still envisaged to complete the transposition process.  

The  national  media  regulator,  Conseil  supérieur  de  l'audiovisuel  (CSA),  will  undergo 
institutional  changes84.  The  Government  has  recently  presented  a  proposal  allowing  the 
merger  of  the  Conseil  supérieur  de  l'audiovisuel  (CSA)  with  the  Haute  Autorité  pour  la 
Diffusion  des  Œuvres  et  la  Protection  des  Droits  sur  Internet  (HADOPI),  the  intellectual 
property  protection  authority,  in  order  to  create  a  single  body  in  charge  of  audiovisual  and 
digital  communication  (ARCOM)85.  This  would  result  in  attributing  to  ARCOM  a  set  of 
competencies  related  to  minors’  protection  online,  disinformation,  hate  speech  and  online 
piracy.  The  CSA  welcomed  the  Government’s  proposal  outlining,  however,  some  concerns 
related to the budget and the composition of the new body86. The proposal envisages that the 
ARCOM will be subject to the same independence guarantees as the CSA and the HADOPI. 
As  in  2020,  the  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  (MPM)87  assessed  the  risks  to  the 
independence and effectiveness of the French media regulator at low level, highlighting that 
the authority possesses an autonomous budget, and its operation, including appointment of its 
members, is transparent.  

The  French  Journalistic  Council  focuses  on  the  compliance  with  deontological 
standards. The Council, composed of representatives of journalists, publishers and the public 
examines alleged breaches of journalistic standards in press articles  (both texts and images, 
published  offline  and  online)  and  in  audiovisual  news  programs.  Since  its  establishment  in 
2019, the Council has recorded almost 411 cases of breach and published 34 notices88. 

The CSA recommended initiating a reflection on  the media ownership framework.  On 
22  March  2021,  the  CSA  issued  an  opinion  stating  that  the  current  anti-concentration 
framework  is  outdated  in  several  aspects  in  light  of  the  demographic,  economic  and 
technological developments in this sector89. The CSA suggested that the Government initiates 
an expert group to work on this issue. The French legal system provides for the obligation of 
the  publication  of  all  direct  and  ultimate  owners  of  media  outlets.  The  allocation  of 
frequencies for audiovisual services is also dependent on the information on the owner of the 
service  requesting  it.  Media  ownership  concentration  is  controlled  by  the  Competition 

83   France ranks 34th in the 2021 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index (16th in the EU), the 
same  position  as  last  year,  but  four  places  higher  compared  to  five  years  ago.  See  website  of  Reporters 
Without Borders, https://rsf.org/en/france. 

84   French Ministry of Culture, Press release of 8 April 2021.  
85   The  institutional  change  was  already  considered  in  the  context  of  the  transposition  process  of  the  revised 

AVMSD. 

86   Conseil  supérieur  de  l’audiovisuel  (2021),  Opinion  on  the  draft  law  on  the  protection  of  public  access  to 

cultural works in the digital age and the draft law on the protection of public access to cultural works. 

87   Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for France, p. 12. 
88   Website of the French Journalistic Council, https://cdjm.org/decisions/. 
89   Conseil  supérieur  de  l’audiovisuel  (2021),  Opinion  on  the  draft  law  on  the  protection  of  public  access  to 

cultural works in the digital age and the draft law on the protection of public access to cultural works. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
Authority, which should consult the CSA when audiovisual media or radio are concerned90. 
The 2021 MPM reports low risk to media ownership transparency, mentioning, however, that 
the  multilayered  ownership  structure  of  numerous  media  conglomerates  might  create  a 
certain degree of opacity. On the other hand, the 2021 MPM reports persisting high levels of 
horizontal and cross-media concentration91. 

French authorities allocated substantial financial support for media outlets. In 2020, in 
order to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the French Government 
allocated EUR 106 million to  guarantee the continuity  of press  distribution and support the 
most affected media actors - newsagents, overseas titles and publishers. All media workers, 
including freelancers, were eligible to short-time work compensation too. With regards to the 
long-term  support,  the  comprehensive  recovery  plan  envisages  EUR  377  million  over  the 
next two years to support the digital and ecological transitions of the media sector92. This also 
includes a fund of EUR 18 million to support the journalists in the most precarious situation, 
such  as  freelancers,  photojournalists  and  cartoonists93.  The  French  Government  also 
envisaged  changes  to  the  framework  of  financial  support  for  newsagents,  especially  with 
regards to the application conditions and the methods of the financial aid calculation94. 

Journalists  in  France  continue  to  be  exposed  to  different  types  of  threats.  Attacks  on 
journalists and media workers, both from the side of protestors and police forces, have been 
reported during protests and demonstrations95. In this context, the Government commissioned 
an independent report96, which includes a set of proposals for measures geared at improving 
safety  of  journalists  as  well  as  their  communication  with  police  forces  during  protests  and 
demonstrations97. The Council of State also declared illegal four provisions of the Plan of the 
Maintenance  of  the  Order,  which  limited  the  operation  of  journalists  during  protests  or 
demonstrations98.  Worrying  developments  have  been  observed  in  relation  to  confidentiality 
of  reporters’  sources99,  threats  of  physical  violence100  or  cases  of  online  harassment, 

90   European Commission, Study on the implementation of the new provisions in the revised Audiovisual Media 

Services Directive. 

91   For  online  media,  the  lack  of  thorough,  standardized  data  prevents  the  establishment  of  any  concentration 

rate. Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for France, p. 13. 

92   French Ministry of Culture, Press release of 27 August 2020. 
93   Website of European Federation of Journalists, https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/database/covid-19-what-

financial-support-has-the-media-and-journalists-received-in-europe/. 

94   Website of the French Ministry of Culture, https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Sites-thematiques/Presse/Aides-a-la-

Presse/L-aide-a-la-modernisation-des-diffuseurs.  

95   See: Website of Reporters Without Borders, https://rsf.org/en/france, https://rsf.org/en/news/cases-violence-
against-french-reporters and Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety 
of journalists (2021), alert of 4 January 2021, Journalists Obstructed during Yellow Vest Demonstrations. 

96   The report was submitted to the French prime minister on 3rd of May 2021. See Annex I. 
97   The French authorities declared that the recommendations in the report would be implemented jointly by the 

interior and culture ministers.  

98   Decision nr. 444849 of the Council of State of 10 June 2021. 
99   The  World  Press  Freedom  Index  reports  that  in  2020,  at  least  two  journalists  were  summoned  for 
questioning by the IGPN (the police internal affairs department) for suspected complicity in a violation of 
police  confidentiality.  Reporters  Without  Borders  raised  its  concerns  in  relation  to  the  French  press  law 
which allows the police to invoke an “overriding requirement in the public interest” as a ground for opening 
an investigation aimed at identifying a journalist’s source. See https://rsf.org/en/news/france-rsf-denounces-
use-concealment-professional-secrecy-accusation-and-calls-its-removal. 

100  On 25 September 2020 a stabbing attack took place outside the former headquarters of the French satirical 
magazine Charlie Hebdo. Before the attack, the perpetrator stated in a video that he was seeking vengeance 
against Charlie Hebdo. See: Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety 
of journalists (2020), alert of 16 December 2020, Two Media Workers Injured in Knife Attack. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
especially  of  female  journalists101.  The  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to  promote  the 
protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  recorded  fifteen  alerts  for  France  since 
October 2020, the majority of which concerned physical attacks, harassment and intimidation 
of  journalists102.  The  2021 MPM  highlights  that  the  frequent  use  of  the  state  of  emergency 
and  a  very  broad  definition  of  disinformation  might  also  affect  negatively  the  situation  of 
journalists.  

The  Constitutional  Council  invalidated  controversial  provisions  which  could  have 
affected  the  activities  of  journalists.  Following  the  critical  reception  by  the  journalistic 
community  of  the  draft  law  on  “Global  security”,  the  Government  proposed  significant 
changes to the draft provision criminalising the dissemination of images showing the face or 
other  identifying  characteristics  of  a  member  of  the  national  police  or  of  the  gendarmerie 
participating in a police operation. The legislative text, adopted in April 2021, included a new 
offence consisting in the malicious dissemination of the image of law enforcement officers in 
the exercise of their duties with the obvious intent to damage their physical or psychological 
integrity (Article 52.1). The Constitutional Council declared this article incompatible with the 
French  Constitution,  due  to  the  lack  of  legal  certainty  stemming  from  the  imprecise 
formulation of this  provision.  The decision of the Constitutional Council was welcomed by 
the media stakeholders103. The Government representatives declared willingness to propose a 
revised version of the article104. 

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 National  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  frequent  in  the  legislative 
process, though not mandatory in all cases. The number of published impact assessments 
accompanying draft laws initiated by Government increased to 25105 out of 61 draft laws in 
2020, from a yearly average of nine. Involving stakeholders and the public is not mandatory 
for the development of new laws106; according to the Council of State, informal consultations, 
including meetings with stakeholders, and consultations through consultative committees are 

101  As confirmed by the 2021 MPM as well as by the discussions in the context of the country visit in France. 

Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for France, p. 13. 

102  While French authorities have responded to the majority of the alerts recorded in 2021, none of them have 
been  qualified  as  resolved  yet.  See  website  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-
freedom/france. 

103  See  Le  Monde  (2021),  Law  “global  security”,  The  Constitutional  Council  censures  ex-article  24, 
https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/05/20/le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-l-ex-article-24-de-la-
proposition-de-loi-securite-globale_6080897_3224.html;  The  Local  (2021),  France’s  constitutional  council 
rejects  proposed  law  limiting  filming  of  police  officers,  https://www.thelocal.fr/20210520/frances-
constitutional-court-rejects-proposed-law-limiting-filming-of-police-officers/. 

104  Ibid. 
105  Input from France for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 43. Under Art. 8 of organic law n°2009-403 of 15 
April 2009, draft legislation originating from Government is subject to an impact assessment and submitted 
to the Council of State for an advisory opinion. Since 2015, an oral decision of the President of the Republic 
made the publication of this opinion possible in most cases. 

106  Except for labour legislation, for which a consultation process with trade unions is mandatory under Art. L1 

of the Labour Code. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
frequent107.  After  nine  months  of  deliberations,  the  Citizens  Convention  for  Climate108 
submitted their proposals to the Government, which published its draft law on climate on 10 
February  2021109.  Moreover,  following  a  proposal  of  the  Convention,  the  President 
committed to hold a referendum to introduce a climate clause in the Constitution110.  

The  use  of fast-track  and  accelerated  procedures,  conceived  for  exceptional  cases,  has 
increased significantly111. In the last parliamentary session (2019-2020), 37 out of 58 laws 
were  adopted  under  the  accelerated  procedure112.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  parliamentary 
term  in  the  National  Assembly,  57%  of  the  laws  were  debated  following  this  procedure. 
Thus, the accelerated procedure, originally conceived as an exception, is becoming the norm, 
even  for  laws  with  a  significant  impact  on  individual  freedoms113,  which  would  therefore 
require an extensive parliamentary debate114.  

The emergency regime introduced in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic has been 
extended several times and ended on 1 June 2021. Established for two months by the law 
of 23 March 2020, the state of health emergency115 was extended until 10 July 2020. Then, 
the law of 9 July 2020 set up a transitional regime from 11 July authorising the Government 
to take exceptional measures to deal with the epidemic until 31 October 2020. The national 
state  of  health  emergency  was  again  declared  by  decree  as  of  17  October  2020  and  its 
extension  was  authorised  by  law  twice,  first  until  16  February  2021  and  then  until  1  June 
2021. It allowed the Government to adopt a range of measures by decree in order to address 
the pandemic. On 27 May 2021, the Parliament adopted a law on the management of the exit 
from the health crisis, which creates a transitional regime116 applicable after the lifting of the 
state  of  health  emergency,  from  2  June  to  30  September  2021.  The  Constitutional  Council 
declared constitutional several provisions of the law contested by a group of deputies117. 

The  highest  courts  were  called  to  review  measures  affecting  fundamental  rights.  The 
Constitutional Council reviewed the validity of the Law authorising the extension of the state 
of  health  emergency  until  16  February  2021  and  introducing  measures  to  tackle  the  health 

107  See  contribution  from  Council  of  State  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  24.  No  specific  figures  are 

available. 

108  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France, p. 10. The Convention, 
established  in  October  2019, gathered  150  randomly  selected  citizens  designed  to  be  representative  of  the 
French public to discuss climate change and prepare draft laws to address it.  

109  The draft climate law includes 46 out of the 149 citizens’ proposals, 17 of which only partially.  
110  The Government submitted a draft constitutional law to this aim on 20 January 2021. 
111  Art.  45,  second  paragraph,  of  the  Constitution  allows  the  Government  to  limit  parliamentary  debates  to  a 
single reading for each chamber of Parliament for a given text. This accelerated procedure also suppresses 
the obligation for six  weeks to elapse before  the  first chamber and four  weeks before the second chamber 
holds a public debate on the text. 

112  See contribution from Council of State for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 25. 
113  See contribution of the European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 23. 
114  For  instance,  the  Government  submitted  the  draft  law  to  reinforce  the  respect  of  the  principles  of  the 
Republic  to  the  accelerated  legislative  procedure.  In  two  separate  opinions,  of  28  January  2021  and  25 
March 2021 on this draft law, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) expressed 
regret that the parliamentary debate was shortened. 

115  The law of 23 March 2020 introduced a new emergency regime specifically tailored to health emergencies, 
and  separate  from  the  pre-existing  emergency  regimes.  The  state  of  health  emergency  is  first  declared  by 
decree for a maximum duration of one month, and  its extension beyond one month must be authorised by 
law, for a specified duration. 

116  Under this regime, the Prime Minister may limit free movement, the opening of establishments open to the 

public, as well as gatherings and demonstrations. Prefects will be able to take such measures locally. 

117  Constitutional Council, Decision no. 2021-819 DC of 31 May 2021. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
crisis118,  and  annulled  the  automatic  prolongation  of  the  duration  of  pre-trial  detention119. 
From March 2020 to  March 2021, the Council  of State ruled in  urgent  proceedings on 647 
applications  challenging  the  Government's  management  of  the  pandemic  and  ordered 
measures or suspended acts of the public authorities in 51 cases. In particular, the Council of 
State  suspended  the  mandatory  use  of  videoconferencing  during  hearings  in  criminal 
proceedings120,  regulated  the  use  of  drones  by  the  police  to  monitor  demonstrations121  and 
ruled  that  clients  must  be  able  to  consult  their  lawyer  even  after  curfew122.  In  51  cases  in 
which the application was formally  rejected, the exchanges during the hearings still led the 
Government to take corrective measures123, and the Council of State reminded the State of its 
duties  or  specified  its  obligations  in  about  130  cases.  The  Council  of  State  has  given  other 
important rulings in relation with fundamental rights, including a judgment on data retention 
which raises concerns as regards its interplay with the legal order of the European Union124. 
In  this  last  judgment,  referring  to  the  binding  nature  of  rulings  of  the  Court  of  Justice,  the 
Council of State nevertheless rejected the request  of the Government  to consider whether a 
ruling from the European Court of Justice could be in breach of the principle of conferral and 
the division of competences between the Union and its Member States125. 

Independent authorities have played an active role in defending of fundamental rights 
throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the Commission Nationale Consultative des 
Droits  de  l’Homme  (CNCDH)126  published  18  opinions  in  the  exercise  of  its  mandate  of 
scrutinising the authorities’ compliance with fundamental rights standards, sometimes acting 
on its own initiative regarding draft laws for which it was not consulted by the Government 
and issuing specific recommendations to ensure compliance with constitutional principles and 
individual  freedoms127.  This  approach  of  advocating  for  legislative  amendments  is  in  line 
with the recommendation from the GANHRI Sub-committee on Accreditation (SCA), which 
encouraged  the  CNCDH  to  continue  to  broaden  its  activities  in  relation  to  its  protection 
mandate128.  The  Defender  of  Rights129  also  maintained  the  continuity  of  its  activities.  In 

118  By Decision no. 2020-808 DC of 13 November 2020, the Constitutional Council declared constitutional the 
extension of the state of health emergency until 16 February 2021, and authorised the measures taken under 
certain reservations. 

119  By Decision no. 2020-878/879 QPC of 29 January 2021, see above. 
120  Order of 27 November 2020 and Decision of 5 March 2021, see above. 
121  Order of 18 May 2020 and Decision of 22 December 2020 on the use of drones to monitor demonstrations in 

Paris. 

122  In  a  Decision  of  3  March  2021,  the  Council  of  State  held  the  view  that  failing  to  provide  this  exemption 
during  the  curfew  constitutes  a  serious  and  manifestly  unlawful  breach  of  the  fundamental  freedom  to 
exercise an effective remedy before a court. 

123  For instance by preparing reports on the impact of the lockdown measures on mental health, and clarifying 

the grounds for authorised travel. 

124  Decision of the Council of State of 21 April 2021, rendered following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 

the EU of 6 October 2020 in Case C-511/18, La Quadrature du Net e.a. 

125  However, the Council of State recalled that the Constitution remains the supreme norm within the national 
legal system, and that it must ensure that the application of EU law, as specified by the Court of Justice of 
the European Union, does not in practice jeopardize constitutional requirements which are not guaranteed in 
an equivalent manner by EU law (paras. 9 and 10 of the Decision). 

126  Assimilated to an independent administrative authority, the CNCDH is a National Human Rights Institution 
accredited  with  A-status  by  the  Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (GANHRI).  It  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. 

127  In its opinions published ex officio on 28 January and 25 March 2021 on the successive versions of the draft 
law to reinforce the respect of the principles of the Republic, the CNCDH regrets not having been consulted 
during the preparation of the draft and formulates, in total, 35 recommendations, some of them addressing 
the precise wording of the law. 

128  GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation Report – March 2019. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
2020, it processed in total 96,894 complaints and 69,705 calls, representing a 10% increase 
from the previous year, and issued 234 recommendations130. However, in order to strengthen 
the rights of those who seize it, the Defender of Rights acknowledged the need to improve the 
follow-up of its recommendations by national authorities, noting that only 56% received an 
answer  in  2019,  31%  of  which  were  refusals131.  The  Defender  of  Rights  also  issued  two 
opinions  on  the  legal  regime  of  the  state  of  health  emergency  in  order  to  ensure  that  the 
legislative  and  regulatory  measures  taken  to  fight  the  pandemic  respect  the  rights  and 
freedoms of individuals and guarantee equal treatment132. 

Recent  legislation  raises  concerns  as  to  its  potential  impact  on  the  landscape  for  civil 
society.  France  is  still  considered  to  have  a  narrowed  civil  society  landscape133,  and 
restrictions  imposed  during  the  pandemic  to  public  gatherings134,  in  particular  their 
implementation  by  local  authorities,  have  generated  further  concerns  in  this  respect135.  The 
new Law on Global Security, adopted by Parliament on 15 April 2021, received considerable 
criticism from various stakeholders136 and independent authorities137 for its potential impact 
on  the  freedoms  of  expression  and  of  information  and  the  right  to  protest.  It  provides  the 
possibility,  for  police  patrols,  to  carry  cameras  and  use  drones  to  transmit  the  images  of 
demonstrators and bystanders live to a command centre, and created a new offence consisting 
in  the  malicious  dissemination  of  the  image  of  law  enforcement  officers  in  the  exercise  of 
their  duties  with  the  obvious  intent  to  damage  their  physical  or  psychological  integrity138. 

129  This  constitutionally  enshrined  body  tasked  with  protecting  citizens’  rights  in  their  relations  with  state 
authorities can be seized by any natural or legal person. It is competent to conduct  investigations, mediate, 
issue recommendations and propose legislative reforms. 

130  Under Art. 25 of Organic Law no. 2011-333 of 29 March 2011, when seized, the Defender of Rights may 
make any recommendation to the authorities or persons concerned, who must inform of the follow-up given 
to the recommendations. In the absence of information or if the follow-up is not satisfactory, the Defender of 
Rights may order the accused person to take, within a specified period, the necessary measures. When this 
injunction  has  not  been  followed  up,  the  Defender  of  Rights  draws  up  a  special  report,  which  is 
communicated to the person concerned. The Defender of Rights publishes this report and, where applicable, 
the response of the person concerned. 

131  See 2020 Annual Activity Report of the Defender of Rights, p. 20. 
132  Opinion 20-03, of 27 April 2020, relating to the implementation of the state of health emergency to deal with 
the  covid-19  pandemic,  as  well  as  orders  and  decrees  taken  for  its  application,  and  opinion  20-10,  of  3 
December 2020, on the legal regime of the state of health emergency. 

133  As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in France, p. 11. See 
the rating  given by  CIVICUS; ratings are on a  five-category scale defined as: open,  narrowed, obstructed, 
repressed and closed.  

134  Some of these measures were successfully challenged in court. By Decision of 13 June 2020, the Council of 
State ruled that the blanket ban on demonstrations gathering more than ten people imposed by a decree of 31 
May 2021 was not justified by the current health situation when the safety measures could be respected or 
when the event was unlikely to bring together more than 5,000 people. On 21 June, a new decree allowed 
prefects  to  authorise  public  gatherings  if  the  organisers  were  able  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  safety 
measures. By Decision of 6 July 2020, the Council of State suspended the requirement for authorisation as a 
disproportionate infringement of the right to demonstrate. 

135  For instance, prefects invoked the risk of disturbance of public order or the state of a health emergency to 
impose bans or restrictions against demonstrations against the draft law on global security, but their orders 
were suspended by courts. See contribution of the European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, 
p. 25. 

136  For instance, on 12 November 2020, the Observatoire des libertés et du numérique issued a communication 
which  gathered  signatures  from  numerous  organisations  including  the  Ligue  des  droits  de  l’Homme,  La 
Quadrature du Net, the Syndicat des avocats de France and the Syndicat de la Magistrature. 

137  See Defender of Rights, Opinion 20-06, of 17 November 2020, on the text adopted by the Law Commission 
on the draft law on global security, and CNCDH, Opinion of 26 November 2020, on the proposition of law 
on global security. 

138  See Section III. 

16 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
This  new  offence  was  strongly  criticised  for  its  impact  on  the  right  to  information, 
considering  the  importance  of  reports  from  witnesses  other  than  professional  journalists139. 
To address these concerns, the Prime Minister decided to submit the law in its entirety to the 
Constitutional Council. The latter declared unconstitutional several provisions, including the 
article creating the abovementioned new offence, and formulated reservations as regard other 
provisions140.  A  draft  law  to  “reinforce  respect  for  the  republican  principles”,  submitted  to 
Parliament on 9 December 2020, was also criticised for the restrictions it might impose on the 
freedom of association and of expression141. In particular, the provisions instituting control of 
foreign funding of religious associations above a certain threshold, extending of the grounds 
for  dissolution  of  associations,  including  for  acts  committed  by  its  members,  as  well  as 
imposing  an  obligation  to  sign  a  broadly  defined  “contract  of  republican  commitment”  on 
association requesting subsidies generate concerns both at national142 and European level143. 

139  See opinion of the Defender of Rights supra, p. 5, and opinion of the CNCDH supra, pp. 6-7. 
140  Decision No. 2021-817 DC of the Constitutional Council of 20 May 2021. 
141  See  contribution  of  the  European  Civic  Forum  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  pp.  26-27.  Amnesty 

International also expressed concerns on this draft law in a communication of 29 March 2021. 

142  See Defender of Rights, Opinion 21-01, of 12 January 2021 on the draft law to reinforce the respect of the 
principles of the Republic and CNCDH of 25 March 2021, Second opinion on the draft law to reinforce the 
respect  of  the  principles  of  the  Republic,  as  well  as  the  joint  letter  addressed  by  a  large  number  of 
associations  and 
to  senators  on  7  April  2021,  https://www.ldh-france.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/Lettre-aux-senatrices-et-senateurs-avec-les-derniers-signataires.pdf.  

trade  unions 

143  See opinion of the Expert Council on NGO Law of the Conference of NGOs of the Council of Europe of 31 
March 2021 on the compatibility with the European standards of the bill to ensure respect for the principles 
of the republic by all. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Agence  Française  Anticorruption 
anticorruption.gouv.fr/files/files/RA_AFA_2020_V2_WEB.pdf). 

(2020),  Activity  Report 

(https://www.agence-francaise-

Agence  Française  Anticorruption  (2020),  Anticorruption  Plan  for  2020-2022  (https://www.agence-
francaise-anticorruption.gouv.fr/files/files/RA_AFA_2020_ENG_Version_Finale.pdf). 

Agence Française Anticorruption (2020), Guidelines on managing the risk of corruption in the public 
procurement 
(https://www.agence-francaise-
cycle 
anticorruption.gouv.fr/files/files/Guide_maitrise_risque_corruption-Hyperlien.pdf). 

Agence  Française  Anticorruption  (2020),  Guidelines  on  the  development  of  mechanisms  for 
whistleblowers 
(https://www.agence-francaise-
anticorruption.gouv.fr/files/files/Recommandations%20AFA.pdf). 

Agence Française Anticorruption (2020), National diagnosis on anti-corruption systems in companies 
(https://www.agence-francaise-
anticorruption.gouv.fr/files/files/Diagnostic%20national%20sur%20les%20dispositifs%20anticorrupti
on%20dans%20les%20entreprises.pdf). 

Agence  Française  Anticorruption  (2020),  Practical  guide  for  companies  in  the  area  of  gifts  and 
hospitality 
(https://www.agence-francaise-
anticorruption.gouv.fr/files/files/Guide%20pratique%20politique%20cadeaux%20et%20invitations.pd
f). 

Agence  Française  Anticorruption  (2021),  Recommendations,  Official  Journal  of  12  January  2021 
(https://www.agence-francaise-anticorruption.gouv.fr/files/files/Recommandations%20AFA.pdf). 

Agence  Française  Anticorruption,  Director  (2020),  Hearing  with  representatives  of  the  National 
http://videos.assemblee-
(video 
Assembly, 
nationale.fr/video.10597957_60656dae755b9.lutte-contre-la-corruption--m-charles-duchaine-
directeur-de-l-agence-francaise-anticorruption-1-avril-2021). 

available 

April 

2021 

in 

at 

L’Assemblée citoyenne des originaires de turque and others (2021), Joint letter to senators on 7 April 
2021 
(https://www.ldh-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Lettre-aux-senatrices-et-senateurs-
avec-les-derniers-signataires.pdf). 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021. 

Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (2021), Opinion on the draft law on the protection of public access 
to cultural works in the digital age and the draft law on the protection of public access to cultural 
works,  22  March  2021  (https://www.csa.fr/Reguler/Espace-juridique/Les-textes-reglementaires-du-
CSA/Avis-du-CSA-au-gouvernement/Avis-du-22-mars-2021-sur-le-projet-de-loi-organique-relatif-a-
la-protection-de-l-acces-du-public-aux-oeuvres-culturelles-a-l-ere-numerique-et-le-projet-de-loi-
relatif-a-la-protection-de-l-acces-de-l-acces-du-public-aux-oeuvres-culturelles). 

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, Expert Council on NGO Law of the Conference of INGOs (2021), Opinion of 31 
March  2021  on  the  compatibility  with  the  European  standards  of  the  bill  to  ensure  respect  for  the 
principles  of  the  republic  by  all  (https://rm.coe.int/opinion-on-the-bill-to-ensure-respect-for-the-
principles-of-the-republ/1680a1f40e). 

Council of Europe, Website (https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/france). 

Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (2020), 
alert 
in  Knife  Attack 
2020,  Two  Media  Workers 
(https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/detail-

16  December 

Injured 

of 

18 

 
 
alert?p_p_id=sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_col_id=column-
3&p_p_col_count=7&_sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet_alertPK=78942550). 

of 

Defender 
(https://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ddd_rapport-annuel-2020_25-03-
2021.pdf). 

Activity 

(2021), 

Annual 

Rights 

2020 

Report 

Defender  of  Rights  (2020),  Opinion  20-03,  of  27  April  2020,  relating  to  the  implementation  of  the 
state of health emergency to deal with the covid-19 pandemic, as well as orders and decrees taken for 
its application (https://juridique.defenseurdesdroits.fr/doc_num.php?explnum_id=19735). 

Defender  of  Rights  (2020),  Opinion  20-06,  of  17  November  2020,  on  the  text  adopted  by  the  Law 
Commission 
security 
(https://juridique.defenseurdesdroits.fr/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=35092&opac_view=-
1&lang_sel=en_UK). 

global 

draft 

law 

the 

on 

on 

Defender of Rights (2020), Opinion 20-10, of 3 December 2020, on the legal regime of the state of 
health emergency (https://juridique.defenseurdesdroits.fr/doc_num.php?explnum_id=20282). 

Defender of Rights (2020), Opinion 20-12, of 16 December 2020, on the implementation of Directive 
(EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection 
of 
law 
of 
(https://juridique.defenseurdesdroits.fr/doc_num.php?explnum_id=20315). 

breaches 

persons 

Union 

report 

who 

Defender  of  Rights  (2021),  Opinion  21-01,  of  12  January  2021,  on  the  draft  law  to  reinforce  the 
Republic 
principles 
respect 
(https://juridique.defenseurdesdroits.fr/doc_num.php?explnum_id=20384). 

the 

the 

of 

of 

Délégation  des  Barreaux  (2021),  Contribution  from  the  Délégation  des  Barreaux  de  France for the 
2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

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

European Civic Forum (2021),  Contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report. 

European Commission (2020), Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in 
France. 

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European  Commission  (2018),  Study  on  the  implementation  of  the  new  provisions  in  the  revised 
Audiovisual  Media 
(https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/study-
implementation-new-provisions-revised-audiovisual-media-services-directive-avmsd). 

Services  Directive 

European  Federation  of Journalists, Website  (https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/database/covid-19-
what-financial-support-has-the-media-and-journalists-received-in-europe/). 

French Constitutional Council, Decision no. 2020-808 DC of 13 November 2020. 

French Constitutional Council, Decision no. 2020-878/879 QPC of 29 January 2021. 

French Constitutional Council, Decision no. 2021-817 DC of 20 May 2021. 

French Constitutional Council, Decision no. 2021-819 DC of 31 May 2021. 

French Council of State (2021), Contribution by the Council of State for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

French Council of State, Order of 27 November 2020 

French Council of State, Decision of 22 December 2020. 

French Council of State, Decision of 3 March 2021.  

French Council of State, Decision of 5 March 2021. 

19 

 
 
French Council of State, Decision of 21 April 2021. 

French Council of State, Order of 18 May 2020. 

French Council of State, Decision of 10 June 2021. 

French Council of State, Decision of 13 June 2020 

French Council of State, Decision of 6 July 2020. 

French Government (2021), Input from France for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

French  Government  (2021),  Report  of  2  April  2021  of  the  Independent  Commission  on  the 
Authorities 
and 
Relationship 
(https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/document/document/2021/05/rapport_commission_i
ndependante_sur_les_relations_entre_le_presse_et_les_forces_de_lordre.pdf). 

Enforcement 

between 

Press 

Law 

the 

the 

French Journalistic Council, Website (https://cdjm.org/decisions/). 

French  Ministry 
(https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Presse/Communiques-de-presse/Annonce-du-plan-de-soutien-a-la-
filiere-presse). 

Culture 

(2020), 

release 

August 

Press 

27 

of 

of 

2020 

of 

French  Ministry 
(https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Presse/Communiques-de-presse/Presentation-en-conseil-des-ministres-
du-projet-de-loi-relatif-a-la-regulation-et-a-la-protection-de-l-acces-aux-aeuvres-culturelles-a-l-ere-
numerique). 

Culture 

(2021), 

release 

Press 

April 

of 

8 

2021 

French  Ministry  of  Culture,  Website, (https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Sites-thematiques/Presse/Aides-a-
la-Presse/L-aide-a-la-modernisation-des-diffuseurs). 

French  National  Assembly,  Bureau  of 
(https://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/15/le-bureau-de-l-assemblee-nationale). 

the  Assembly,  Summaries  of 

the  meetings 

French  Parliament,  Commission  of  Inquiry  (2020),  Report  on  obstacles  to  judicial  independence 
(https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/15/rapports/cejustice/l15b3296_rapport-enquete). 

Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), Sub-Committee on Accreditation 
(SCA) (2019), Report of March 2019. 

GRECO (2020), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on France. 

High  Authority  for  the  Transparency  of  Public  Life,  Opinions  at  the  request  of  ethics  officers 
(https://www.hatvp.fr/consulter-les-deliberations-et-avis/). 

Le  Monde  (2021),  Law  “global  security”,  The  Constitutional  Court  censures  ex-article  24  (Loi 
l’ex-article 24) 
« sécurité 
(https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/05/20/le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-l-ex-article-24-
de-la-proposition-de-loi-securite-globale_6080897_3224.html) . 

constitutionnel 

globale » : 

censure 

Conseil 

le 

Observatoire des libertés et du numérique (2020), Communication of 12 November 2020. 

National  Consultative  Commission  on  Human  Rights  (CNCDH)  (2020),  Opinion  of  26  November 
2020, on the proposition of law on global security. 

National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) (2021), First opinion, of 28 January 
2021,  on  the  draft  law  to  reinforce  the  respect  of  the  principles  of  the  Republic  to  the  accelerated 
legislative 
(https://www.cncdh.fr/sites/default/files/a_-_2021_-_1_-
_pjl_principes_de_la_republique_janv_2021.pdf). 

procedure 

National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) (2021), Second opinion, of 25 March 
2021,  on 
the  Republic 
law 
(https://www.cncdh.fr/sites/default/files/a_-_2021_-_4_-
_2nd_avis_sur_le_pjl_principes_de_la_republique_mars_2021.pdf). 

the  principles  of 

the  respect  of 

to  reinforce 

the  draft 

Reporters Without Borders, Website (https://rsf.org/en/france). 

20 

 
 
The  Local  (2021),  France’s  constitutional  court  rejects  proposed  law  limiting  filming  of  police 
officers 
(https://www.thelocal.fr/20210520/frances-constitutional-court-rejects-proposed-law-
limiting-filming-of-police-officers/). 

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. 

Union  Syndicale  des  Magistrats  (2020),  Syndicat  de  la  Magistrature,  Open  letter,  of  21  December 
2020. 

21 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to France 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2021 with: 

  Agence France Presse 
  Anti-Corruption Agency 
  Central Office for Combating Corruption and Tax Offenses 
  Council of State 
  Defender of rights 
  Delegation of the Bars of France 
  Ethics Commissioner of the National Assembly 
  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 
  Syndicat de la Magistrature 
  Union syndicale des magistrats 

Journalistic Ethics and Mediation Council 

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

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  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 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights 
 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 

22 

 
 
 
  Transparency International EU 

23