Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/paris-international-litigation-bulletin-13388/
Timestamp: 2014-07-12 10:36:55
Document Index: 317604931

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', 'in fine']

Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 | Christelle Coslin - JDSupra
Reform of the French Blocking Statute: Towards a restriction of its scope of application Page 9
Situation of the fight against corruption in France Page 11
New decision against France due to the excessive length of judicial liquidation proceedings Page 13
Mediation in civil and commercial matters: Transposition of the European Directive of 21 May 2008 in French law Page 15
Modernisation of pleadings in French civil procedure Page 17
TRANSLATOR'S CORNER: Paralegal Page 19
Download PDF Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 May 2012Further information If you would like further information, please contact a person mentioned below or the person with whom you usually deal. Contacts This note is written as a general guide only. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for specific legal advice. Thomas Rouhette Partner, Paris thomas.rouhette@hoganlovells.com Christelle Coslin Senior Associate, Paris christelle.coslin@hoganlovells.comContents RECENT DEVELOPMENTS UPDATES FEATURES French legislative and regulatory developments Page 4 French proceedings Page 7 The dematerialisation of French civil procedure: More than ever a reality Page 9 Reform of the French Blocking Statute: Towards a restriction of its scope of application Page 9 Situation of the fight against corruption in France Page 11 New decision against France due to the excessive length of judicial liquidation proceedings Page 13 Mediation in civil and commercial matters: Transposition of the European Directive of 21 May 2008 in French law Page 15 Modernisation of pleadings in French civil procedure Page 17 TRANSLATOR'S CORNER: Paralegal Page 19Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 4 Recent developments FRENCH LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS  Preparation of a reform of civil liability in France French civil law has been undergoing changes for years. After the reform of the regime of statutes of limitations, reorganised by Law no. 2008-561 of 17 June 2008, and the suggested reform of contracts law presented by the Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2011, the third chapter of this makeover concerns civil liability. This suggested reform is based on the works of a working group led by Professor François Terré, under the aegis of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. In addition to legal authors, practitioners participated, in this scope, in the establishment of a draft text. The Ministry of Justice organised a public consultation on this draft, which ended on 16 January 2012, and which results are not yet known. The aim of this suggested reform is to clarify civil liability law to improve access to it as well as its efficiency. For this purpose, it is suggested to substantially amend the wording of Articles 1382 and following of the French Civil Code by carrying out a double codification covering case law developments (for instance, in matters relating to liability for damage caused by things and unusual neighbourhood disturbances) and the various texts having established special liability regimes (for instance, Law no. 85-677 of 5 July 1985, which created the special regime relating to compensation of traffic accidents). The working group notably adopted a comparative law approach, by following certain solutions of foreign law. Among the numerous propositions giving rise to 69 Articles, the major themes of the reform shall hereafter be examined, starting with the trilogy that traditionally makes a civil tort: the fault, the loss and the causal link. Firstly, pursuant to the suggested reform, illicitness would be the central point of the definition of a civil fault, which would now correspond to an "illicit fact", i.e. a breach of "a rule of conduct imposed by the law or by the general duty to be cautious and diligent". Adopting previous case law solutions, the suggested reform specifies the conditions to hold legal entities liable from a civil standpoint in the presence of a fault of one of the bodies of the company or a defect in its organisation or functioning. The document adds that "a company shall be liable for damage caused by the company it controls or on which it exercises significant influence only if, as a consequence of any participation in a body of this company, any instruction, interference or abstention in its management, it significantly contributed to the realisation of the damage. The same applies when a company creates or uses another company in its own interest and to the detriment of others". With respect to the notion of damage, defined as "any established harm to a personal interest that is recognised and protected by the law", the main innovation lies in the introduction of a new head of loss: harm to a collective interest, which particularly aims at compensating environmental losses. However, the suggested reform only creates this concept and refers to the law for more details on the conditions governing the compensation of this type of loss. Secondly, causation is also affected by the suggested reform. On the one hand, the cause is defined as "any fact that may […] produce [the damage] in the ordinary course of things and without which it would not have occurred" and a limit is defined in the chain of causes: only the immediate and direct consequences of the damage can be compensated pursuant to this text. On the other hand, the principle of joint and several liability of the authors of the tort is included in the law and clarified: each party involved shall be liable for the entire damage towards the victim and can subsequently file an action against the co-authors in proportion to the seriousness of their respective faults. Moreover, the suggested reform provides for an equal contribution in the event of collective liability without any fault. The inclusion of a general form of liability without fault in the French Civil Code would represent a significant change. The suggested reform also innovates in terms of exclusion of, or exemption from, liability. The text tries to create a connection with criminal liability by providing for several cases where the harmful event would not give rise to liability, more specifically when the behaviour in question "resulted from legal and regulatory provisions, was imposed by the legitimate authority or required for purposes of self-defence or to protect a higher interest" or when the victim agreed to the breach of one of its rights insofar as the latter was available. The victim's fault could only partially be exonerating, unless it meets all the conditions of an event of Force Majeure (which is defined as "the event which occurrence or consequences could not be avoided by the defendant or the person for whom the defendant is responsible by using appropriate measures"). Moreover, the public policy nature of tort liability resulting from a fault would arise from the law that would explicitly prohibit any limitation of liability or exemption from liability clauses. Nevertheless, the suggested reform provides that such a possibility would be available for cases of liability which do not require a fault (except in the case of personal injury). Furthermore, while keeping the principle of full compensation and specifying its scope, the reform would create a new large-scale exception in the presence of an intentional lucrative fault. In such a case, the court would be authorised "by a specially motivated decision" to punish the wrongful author by setting the amount of damages according to the profit generated by the latter from the fault and not according to the compensation of the sustained loss. The purpose of such decisions to punish can only make one think of punitiveParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 5 damages, which exist under US law, even though a limit (the profit generated) is laid down by the text to prevent any uncontrolled escalation of the amounts of damages awarded. Another concept taken from Anglo-Saxon law, which would also be introduced, is the notion of mitigation, as the text enables the court to reduce the amount of damages if the victim does not take "the safe and reasonable measures to limit the loss". The text also suggests departing from the traditional distinction between tort liability and contractual liability by providing that "damage to the physical and psychological integrity of the person are compensated [according to the tort regime] even though they would be caused at the time of the performance of a contract". On the other hand, to maintain this distinction, a contractual breach could only give rise to compensation pursuant to the rules relating to the implementation of contractual liability. To conclude, this suggested reform would give rise to changes that may greatly modify French law on certain points. While more clarity could generally result from the adoption of such a reform, the modification of concepts such as the fault or the introduction of new heads of loss or new rules to compensate losses could be at the origin of legal insecurity. In this respect, it will be interesting to examine the results of the public consultation organised by the Ministry of Justice and follow the possible transformation of the current propositions into a bill. Christelle Coslin  Towards the criminal protection of business secrets under French law Business secrets are an essential asset of companies. Yet, the protection of these secrets is currently impeded by the inability of French law to adapt to recent technological evolutions that give rise to the rapid dematerialisation of data and information held by companies. French companies are increasingly facing attempts of theft or appropriation of their business secrets through various means, in particular, judicial means. Thus, the determination of an appropriate protection of these secrets has become essential. It is all the more essential as foreign laws, including in particular US law, have already implemented a protective legal arsenal. The French Government thus initiated a few years ago a policy of economic intelligence including, in particular, the implementation of the protection of business secrets. On 23 January 2012, the French Assemblée Nationale adopted, on its first reading, a bill aiming at sanctioning violations of business secrets, which is greatly inspired from the recommendations of the Interministerial Working Group on business secrets presided by Mr Claude Mathon, Advocate General before the French Supreme Court, in a report filed on 17 April 2009. The bill arose from a mere observation: French law, whether criminal or civil law, does not enable to efficiently punish violations of business secrets. Economically sensitive information of companies are criminally protected using disparate incriminations that do not form a coherent whole. Thus, while breach of trust, punished by Article 314-1 of the French Criminal Code, enables to punish certain violations of business secrets (with respect to the misappropriation of intangible property; see, in this edition, Customer poaching can now be punished by Criminal Courts on the ground of breach of trust by Christophe Garin), this incrimination, however, requires the prior transfer of a good, which often occurs in a contractual context and thus has an excessively restrictive scope of application. Another example is the disclosure of a trade secret, punished by Article L. 621-1 of the French Code of Intellectual Property, which only enables to punish the managers and employees of a company and excludes from its scope of application, pursuant to case law, the disclosure of trade or management processes. From a civil standpoint, companies that are victims of a violation of their business secrets are entitled to initiate an action for unfair competition and subsequently obtain that their competitors be ordered to pay damages. However, civil actions only punish violations of business secrets a posteriori and are thus not necessarily dissuasive. The sustained loss is in fact difficult to assess as it often corresponds to a loss of chance or the loss of a competitive advantage. One of the reasons of the inefficiency of French law also relates to the absence of any formal definition of "business secrets", even though this expression is found in a dozen recent legal provisions and is frequently used by case law, whether of Criminal and Civil Courts or of Administrative Courts. The bill thus provides the following definition of the information subject to protection as business secrets: "regardless of the medium, the processes, objects, documents, data or files of a commercial, industrial, financial, scientific, technical or strategic nature that are not public and which unauthorised disclosure may seriously endanger the interests of the company by damaging its scientific and technical potential, its strategic positions, its commercial or financial interests or its competitive capacity and which have consequently been subject to specific protection measures aiming at informing of their confidential nature and ensuring such". The bill adds, in a second paragraph, that the specific protection measures shall be determined by a Decree adopted after having heard the Council of State.Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 6 Such a definition at least has the merit of covering all types of information, regardless of the medium. Yet, it is extremely broad and the decision to protect information as a business secret will first of all be taken by the company itself depending on the requirements that will be laid down by decree. However, the Criminal Court will, in the end, decide the extent to which information held by a company can be deemed as information subject to protection as business secrets within the meaning of this text, which may give rise to characterisation issues that will not reassure companies. With respect to the incrimination, the bill provides that only the people holding the protected information or anyone having obtained knowledge of such information and related measures, if they disclose the information to a person not entitled to receive it, may be considered as the authors of the offence and incur as such a prison sentence of a maximum of 3 years and a fine of 375,000 Euros. The bill does, therefore, not punish the undue possession, the attempt to use or the use on one's own behalf, of the secret information or documents, which may be regretful. The incrimination is dismissed in several cases, notably when "the court orders or authorises the production of an exhibit subject to protection as business secrets in view of a party's exercise of its rights, unless another party brings forward a legitimate ground against such production". Even though it is not complete, the bill enables, through a single incrimination, to better fight against attempts to inveigle documents or information held by companies representing a competitive advantage. The coming implementation of the criminal protection of business secrets shall thus represent an improvement of the French legal tools. Cécile Di MeglioParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 7 FRENCH PROCEEDINGS  Towards a broader place for citizens in criminal justice? One of the major provisions of Law no. 2011-939 of 10 August 2011 on the participation of citizens in the functioning of criminal justice and the judgment of minors arose from a governmental initiative to bring citizens closer to the judicial system by enabling them to participate in the judgment of certain offences. Indeed, this provision provides that, since 1st January 2012, two citizen assessors may sit with three professional judges in special benches of the Criminal Court (citizen bench of the Criminal Court) and of the Appellate Criminal Chamber. This measure only came into force on an experimental basis and for the time being only concerns the districts of the Courts of Appeal of Dijon and Toulouse (Order of 12 October 2011). As from 1st January 2013, the districts of the Courts of Appeal of Angers, Bordeaux, Colmar, Douai, Fort-de-France, Lyon, Montpellier and Orléans will also be concerned (Order of 16 February 2012). The first draws of citizen assessors among the people listed on electoral rolls, who must be older than 23 and must not have been subject to any sentence for any crime or offence and must not have been called as a citizen assessor in the previous five years, took place in March 2012. Citizen assessors are entitled to rule on violent offences committed against others (violence, sexual assault, dangerous destructions and degradations for people) as well as on certain offences relating to damage to property. However, the Constitutional Court considered in its decision of 4 August 2011 (Decision no. 2011-635 DC) that citizen assessors could not rule on cases relating to violations of the French Environmental Code and crimes against the nation, the State and public peace. Indeed, rulings on such types of offences require specific legal knowledge. In order to successfully carry out their mission, the citizens concerned benefit from a 1-day training session on the functioning of criminal justice and their expected role. This role is broad as they can ask questions to the accused, the civil party, the witnesses and experts by requesting leave to speak. Furthermore, the Presiding Judge will have to ensure that the citizen assessors have acknowledged all the elements of the file. Like professional judges, citizen assessors will take part in the decisions on the characterisation of the facts, the guilt of the accused and the chosen sentence. This participation of citizens could greatly modify the functioning of French criminal justice. The various players of the judicial system have already taken a stand on this provision. Thus, in March 2012, more than 80% of lawyers registered with the Paris Bar declared themselves against the generalisation of the presence of citizen assessors in Criminal Courts. It is only on 1st January 2014, i.e. after an experimental phase of two years, that the scheme could be generalised throughout France. In this respect, there is no doubt that the assessment report that will have to be presented by the Government to the Parliament in June 2013 will be decisive. Christine Gateau  New distribution of disputes in France and simplification of certain criminal proceedings Inspired by the Report of Serge Guinchard of August 2008, "Reasoned ambition of a smoother justice", Law no. 2011-1862 of 13 December 2011 on the distribution of disputes and the simplification of certain proceedings before civil and criminal courts has recently slightly modified the French legal landscape. Only the most significant measures among the numerous ones enacted by this reform will hereafter briefly be presented. Introduced in 2002, the Juridictions de Proximité (Community Courts) will first of all be closed from 1st January 2013 and their jurisdiction transferred to the Tribunaux d'Instance (Lower Civil Courts). Thus, the latter courts will have exclusive jurisdiction, in civil and commercial matters, for patrimonial actions, which amounts do not exceed 10,000 Euros and those which claims are not determined but relate to an obligation, which amount does not exceed 10,000 Euros. The Law of 13 December 2011, however, does not announce the end of Community Judges which previously composed the Community Courts. They will be connected to Civil Courts and will be sent each year by the Presiding Judges of these Civil Courts to the various services of the courts. They will benefit from new powers as they will now be entitled to rule on motions to obtain injunctions to pay, save in the event of challenges, and carry out, in certain conditions, various investigation measures (go on site for personal verifications of the Judge, hear the parties during their personal hearing and hear witnesses during investigations). As from 1st January 2013, injunctions to pay concerning an amount exceeding 10,000 Euros shall no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the Lower Civil Courts but of the Civil Courts unless they relate to a matter for which the Lower Civil Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. This amendment will mean that the representation by a lawyer will be necessary in these disputes, which the Civil Court and not the Lower Civil Court will have to hear in the event of a challenge of the debtor. In criminal matters, besides the creation of a specialised division in Paris relating to crimes against humanity and war crimes and offences, certain Civil Courts appointed by Decree adopted after having heard the Council of State now have an exclusive jurisdiction in criminal matters for the offences of unintentional harm to the life of others and the integrity of persons, which include a plurality of victims.Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 8 Lastly, this reform also aims at improving access to simplified criminal proceedings. The new Law notably extends the possibility to have recourse to a criminal order for numerous offences, provided that no prison sentence and no fine of more than 5,000 Euros are ordered. Therefore, this procedure, which does not imply a debate in the presence of the parties, applies, for instance, to the offences of counterfeiting committed via a public online communication service. The hearing procedure in the event of a prior acknowledgment of guilt has also been extended to all offences, regardless of the sentence incurred, except in matters relating to harm to the integrity of persons and sexual assaults. The future will tell us if this law will simplify, as expected, the judicial organisation and enable to significantly reduce the length of proceedings, which sometimes impeded their efficiency. Christelle Coslin/Delphine Lapillonne  Customer poaching can now be punished by Criminal Courts on the ground of breach of trust Pursuant to Article 314-1 of the French Criminal Code "the fact for any person to misappropriate, to the detriment of others, funds, valuables, or any goods handed over to and accepted by him/her subject to the obligation of returning them, producing them again or using such in a determined way" is punished on the ground of the offence of breach of trust. This provision thus enables to punish any person who misappropriates a good handed over to him/her on a provisional basis. It is the notion of good likely to be misappropriated pursuant to this criminal offence that the decision of the French Supreme Court of 16 November 2011 clarified by expressly extending the scope of application of this text to information relating to customers, without any reference to media (French Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber, 16 November 2011, Pourvoi no. 10-87.866). In this case, a former employee of a telephone services brokerage company was prosecuted for breach of trust for having poached customers of this company to the benefit of a competitor, by using the information which he had in his possession as a result of his functions. Confirming the dismissal order handed down by the Investigating Judge, the Investigating Chamber had considered, while it resulted from the elements of the case that the indicted persons had "undeniably poached part of the customers", that in "the absence of any abstraction of a file, the use of the material means at the disposal of the indicted persons cannot constitute the offence of breach of trust, as these elements are not funds, valuables or goods handed over subject to the obligation of returning them, producing them again or using such in a determined way". This decision has been quashed by the Criminal Chamber on the ground that "the provisions of this text apply to any goods, which may be appropriated" and that "the information relating to customers constitutes a good that may be misappropriated". This decision is in line with an evolution of case law, which started in 2000, aiming at dematerialising the notion of a good in criminal law and, as a consequence, offences against such goods. On 14 November 2000 (Pourvoi no. 99-84.522, Bull. Crim. no. 338), the Criminal Chamber had already considered, to establish the offence of breach of trust concerning the misappropriation of a bank card number, that "the provisions of Article 314-1 of the French Criminal Code apply to any goods and not only to tangible goods". Pursuant to two significant decisions handed down in 2004, the Criminal Chamber had then established the offence of breach of trust regarding the misappropriation of an access to the Internet (French Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber, 19 May 2004, Pourvoi no. 03-89.953, Bull. Crim. no. 126) and then an industrial "project" (a project relating to a computer terminal for a sewage treatment plant designed by the employee in the scope of his/her employment contract), without taking the medium used into account (French Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber, 22 September 2004, Pourvoi no. 04-80.285, Bull. Crim. no. 218). Until now, customer poaching could only be punished before Civil and Commercial Courts, on the ground of unfair competition. The criminal option was closed for victims of such misappropriations, as case law considered that due to the intangible nature of customers, their misappropriation could not give rise to criminal proceedings on the ground of breach of trust, unless the misappropriation of material elements such as files, paper documents or computer files is justified (French Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber, 9 March 1987, Pourvoi no. 84-91.977, Bull. Crim. no. 111). The use of information relating to customers obtained fraudulently was thus punished by the payment of damages, on the ground of tort liability provided for in Articles 1382 and 1383 of the French Civil Code (French Supreme Court, Commercial Chamber, 30 January 2001, Pourvoi no. 98-20.621; and 24 March 1998, Pourvoi no. 96-15.906), implying the establishment of the existence of a fault, such as the fraudulent use of the customer file, a loss and a causal link. The decision of the French Supreme Court of 16 November 2011 thus offers new prospects to victims of customer poaching by including the sole "information relating to customers" in the scope of application of the breach of trust, without any reference to any material medium. Use of this offence, which is punished by a 3-year prison sentence and a fine of 375,000 Euros under Article 314-1 of the French Criminal Code, could be more dissuasive than the mere risk of having to pay damages of an amount equal to the sole loss suffered by the victim. Christophe GarinParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 9 Updates  The dematerialisation of French civil procedure: More than ever a reality Electronic communications with French Civil Courts are becoming the norm. Indeed, electronic communications with the Paris, Nanterre, Bobigny and Créteil Civil Courts have now become compulsory in civil matters (see In practice: The dematerialisation of French civil procedure, by Christelle Coslin and Isabelle Mougin, Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 2, January 2012). To allow the courts and lawyers to familiarize themselves with the system, communications of procedural instruments on paper was tolerated during a transitional period, applicable until 2 April 2012. This practice notably guaranteed compliance with the adversarial principle by authorising lawyers not yet registered on the Réseau Privé Virtuel Avocats (Lawyer Virtual Private Network -"RPVA") to communicate their instruments on paper. This transitional period has now ended. It is no longer possible to file instruments on paper with the Paris Civil Court and Courts in the adjacent suburbs or even to send them faxes or letters. Filings and other exchanges, including official communications between lawyers, must now compulsorily be made via the e-Barreau portal. To overcome the absence of direct non-electronic contacts with the courts, the Paris Bar has announced the creation of a single phone number that will enable lawyers to ask questions on the implementation of the dematerialisation. However, one ought to specify that proceedings before Enforcement Judges, seizures of property, summary proceedings or motions are not concerned. As for Commercial and Labour Courts, they should soon encounter a similar evolution. The very principle of the use of RPVA for notifications to lawyers of procedural instruments has recently been reinforced by a decision of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal of 5 March 2012. This decision, indeed, recalls that by registering with RPVA, lawyers are granted a personal email address and are deemed as having accepted the fact that instruments will be communicated to him/her electronically. Such a solution is possible through a secure e-Barreau portal, which is only accessible using an electronic signature certificate included in the cryptographic key given to the lawyer at the time of his/her registration with the RPVA. Christelle Coslin/Isabelle Mougin  Reform of the French Blocking Statute: Towards a restriction of its scope of application A bill adopted on its first reading by the French Assemblée Nationale on 23 January 2012 (see, in this edition, Towards the criminal protection of business secrets under French law by Cécile Di Meglio) notably aims at reforming Law no. 80-538 of 16 July 1980 (the "French Blocking Statute"), which criminally punishes the search and communication of "economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical documents or information" abroad to gather evidence when such activities are performed outside international judicial cooperation channels, such as those provided for by The Hague Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters ("The Hague Convention"). This criminal provision established in 1980 aims at providing French companies with a legal excuse to refuse to comply with requests to produce evidence sent in the scope of litigation pending in the United States in the so-called "pre-trial discovery" phase and thus fight against the extraterritorial application of US discovery rules. The US courts' compliance with The Hague Convention notably enables the French authorities to exercise control over the documents sought, as these authorities only enforce letters of request in which the documents sought are restrictively listed and have a direct and precise link with the subject-matter of the dispute (as provided for by France's reservation of 19 January 1987 pursuant to Article 23 of The Hague Convention). The French Blocking Statute has, however, not had the expected effect as US courts continue to ignore the risk of criminal trials in France when the evidence sought is located in France (see Four years after the Christopher X decision, US courts still give little deference to the French Blocking Statute by Christina Taber-Kewene and Cécile Di Meglio, Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 2, January 2012). Based on the principle that the French Blocking Statute is "inefficient and obsolete", the bill aims at limiting the prohibition laid down by this statute to documents subject to protection as business secrets. The legislator thus considers that by restricting its scope of application, the French Blocking Statute will be more worthy of consideration by US courts. While one can subscribe to the rather inefficient nature of the French Blocking Statute due to the position of US courts, one must be careful not to disregard the fact that several dozens of letters of request are sent each year by these US courts to the French central authority to be enforced in France. This, therefore, means that parties in the United States often agree on the application of The Hague Convention when evidence is located in France and do thus not have to refer the case to the US courts to obtain a ruling on the applicability of this Convention. In this respect, it is a clear fact that the existence of the French Blocking Statute promotes the conclusion of such agreements between the parties.Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 10 The limited efficiency of the French Blocking Statute, however, results more from a lack of adjustment to the situation it wishes to prevent rather than from an excessive scope of application. Indeed, it gives rise, for French companies communicating documents abroad in the scope of a trial, to a risk of criminal proceedings in France while these companies also face sanctions in the United States if they do not communicate what is requested. French companies are thus caught between complying with French criminal law and the intention to defend their interests as best as possible in the scope of proceedings abroad, in particular in the United States. Limiting the application of the French Blocking Statute to documents subject to protection as business secrets would nevertheless present the immediate interest of limiting the cases where companies would face such a dilemma. If the French authorities really wish to limit the effects of US procedural rules, which they consider as extraterritorial, it seems more efficient to directly negotiate with the authorities of this country in the scope of The Hague Conference to render the reference to The Hague Convention mandatory between the signatory States. This would require, from a US standpoint, a reform of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for The Hague Convention to prevail when the evidence sought is located in a country having ratified the Convention, thus neutralising the Aérospatiale case law of 1987 of the US Supreme Court. Until the time when such reforms will be implemented, French companies will continue to receive discovery requests from the United States outside any letter of request, whether or not the scope of application of the French Blocking Statute is restricted to information subject to protection as business secrets. Cécile Di MeglioParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 11 Situation of the fight against corruption in France According to the corruption perceptions index created by the NGO Transparency International for 2011, France is ranked 25th, far behind New Zealand, Denmark or Finland, which are seen as the most righteous countries. Nevertheless, France is ranked before Spain (31st), Hungary (54th) or Italy (69th). This index assesses on an annual basis 183 countries and territories on the basis of data resulting from numerous surveys relating, among other things, to the application of anti-corruption laws, access to information or conflicts of interests. According to the NGO, France's ranking would notably be due to the recent increase of cases receiving high media coverage, which would damage its image in the eyes of international observers. The NGO actually underlined the exceptional nature of sentences for corruption in France, in particular in terms of international corruption (two sentences ordered in 10 years for the corruption of foreign officials, compared to 42 in Germany) and notably presented the following recommendations to the French Government in June 2011:  Reform the status of the Public Prosecutor's Department to replace it with an Attorney General of the Nation, an independent judicial authority "capable of resisting the interferences of the political power";  Reform the procedure of military classification to strengthen its impartiality;  Establish a kind of guilty plea in matters relating to corruption in order to "accelerate the judicial system and render it more efficient". In the scope of the presidency of the G-20, France indicated that it wished to make the fight against corruption a priority. This wish was reiterated during the G-20 summit which took place in Cannes on 3 and 4 November 2011. Recent legislative and case law developments seem to implement this orientation. Indeed, Law no. 2011-525 of 17 May 2011 amended the French Criminal Code in order to clear all ambiguities concerning the conditions governing the offence of corruption and thus facilitate proof of such offence. Before 2000, it was admitted that the corruption agreement, namely the agreement establishing the mutual intentions of the corrupting party and corrupt party, had to occur before the actual act of corruption. This requirement limited the cases where the elements constituting the offence could be gathered. Law no. 2000-595 of 30 June 2000 had, firstly, attempted to overcome this difficulty by specifying that acts of corruption could occur "at any time". However, the ambiguity of this modification, as well as the absence of any consensus as to its scope, affected ongoing proceedings, giving rise to strong criticisms by legal authors. To clear all uncertainties, the texts, as amended by the Law of 17 May 2011, expressly take into account the acts of corruption already committed in the scope of the offence of corruption ('for committing or having committed, for refraining from acting or for having refrained from acting"). As a consequence, the offer or acceptance of payment for a previous favourable act shall be considered as an act establishing this offence. Without any possible doubts, the Law now sanctions the prior and subsequent act of corruption. Nevertheless, despite this significant clarification, the investigation of acts of corruption regularly encounters a major obstacle: the military classification of documents and sometimes even locations. The judges' access to classified documents is, indeed, subject to a procedure which notably requires the green light of the administrative authority having ordered the classification. This authority decides upon an advisory opinion of the Consultative Commission on National Defence Secrecy. Moreover, since Law no. 2009-928 of 29 July 2009, judges could only access classified locations for national defence secrecy following a temporary decision to declassify the location rendered by the administrative authority, thus subjecting the judicial power of investigation to an administrative decision. The Constitutional Court, examining a request for a priority ruling on an issue of constitutionality, ruled, on 10 November 2011, as contrary to the Constitution the legal provisions concerning classified locations for national defence secrecy as well as those concerning searches in such locations. This decision, which became effective on 1 December 2011, makes certain locations accessible to judges. This will potentially have a favourable effect on the search of evidence in the scope of the fight against corruption. However, one ought to put the impact of this decision into perspective as the Constitutional Court has approved the provisions relating to the classification of documents. As a consequence, the classification of documents as military secret shall remain enforceable against judges unless the administrative authority changes its position.Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 12 It will, therefore, be interesting to pay attention to the future decisions that will be handed down in this field and to the possible legislative developments in order to see how the fight against corruption and the protection of military secrets will be balanced. Thomas Rouhette thomas.rouhette@hoganlovells.com Pauline Blondet pauline.blondet@hoganlovells.comParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 13 New decision against France due to the excessive length of judicial liquidation proceedings The right to have one's case tried within a reasonable period of time is one of the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial. As a consequence, the violation of Article 6, §1, of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the "Convention") probably represents the ground having justified most of the sentences in criminal matters, but also in civil and commercial matters. A new example is provided by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights ("ECHR") of 22 September 2011 in re Tetu v. France (no. 60983/09). In this case, the claimant had initiated an action in 2009 before the ECHR to complain about the excessive length of the judicial liquidation of his farm, which had started in 1990 to end in 2011, i.e. 21 years later. According to him, the proceedings had not complied with the requirement of a reasonable time period and had deprived him of the availability of his goods, without ensuring an effective remedy. These three grounds have been retained by the ECHR in its decision against France. Reasonable time period To challenge the theory of the claimant, the French Government asserted that the latter's behaviour had contributed to the length of the judicial proceedings as the debtor had lost interest in the proceedings and had refrained from acting during the observation period. The ECHR recalled the long line of case law concerning the elements to be taken into account to determine the reasonableness of the duration of proceedings, i.e. the facts of the case, its complexity, the claimant's behaviour and that of the relevant authorities as well as the stakes of the dispute for the parties. In the case at hand, the case was particularly complex from a legal standpoint due to the situation of joint ownership of the claimant with the other members of his family in the scope of a succession. Yet, after having acknowledged that the debtor had not been cooperative and that the liquidation operations and the distribution of the succession may have delayed the proceedings, the ECHR considered that the French Government had not proven how the debtor's behaviour would have delayed the proceedings between the opening of the liquidation and the moment when the ECHR handed down its decision. Moreover, as the debtor is not a party to the liquidation proceedings, the liquidator, who exercises the rights and actions of the debtor during such proceedings, had to inform the Bankruptcy Judge of the encountered difficulties. Lastly, the Government had not provided explanations regarding several periods of judicial inactivity. In light of these elements, the ECHR considered that the length of the proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirement of a reasonable period of time pursuant to Article 6, §1, of the Convention. This decision is not the first decision handed down against France due to the excessive length of insolvency proceedings. A decision had notably already been handed down in 2002 (ECHR, 17 January 2002, no. 41476/98, Laine v. France). Deprivation of property The claimant also asserted that the liquidation proceedings had deprived him of the administration and availability of his property for more than twenty years. According to the French Government, this deprivation was justified by the legitimate objective pursued by the liquidation proceedings consisting in guaranteeing, to the benefit of the creditors of the debtor, the recovery of their claims. The ECHR recalled that this measure of interference in the availability of the property of the debtor must ensure a fair balance between the requirements of general interest and the requirements relating to the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual. Yet, according to the ECHR, this balance is not ensured when the prohibition imposed on the debtor may give rise for the latter to an excessive burden with respect to the possibility to use his property, especially when the proceedings last for a very long time, as in the case at hand. The duration of the proceedings being manifestly excessive, the ECHR, in this case, considered that the interference in the debtor's right to peacefully enjoy his property was not justified during the entire proceedings and was disproportionate compared to the pursued objective. The violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 relating to the protection of property of natural persons has thus been established. Absence of any effective remedy The claimant lastly considered having been deprived of the possibility to bring an action before the French courts to have the excessive length of the proceedings acknowledged, the rights and obligations of the debtor being exercised during the entire duration of the liquidation proceedings by the liquidator. According to the French Government, to the contrary, this right of action of the debtor would solely have been suspended and not cancelled during the liquidation proceedings. The ECHR recalled, in this respect, that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the existence in domestic laws of an effective remedy before a national court to complain about any breach of the obligation, imposed by Article 6, §1, to hear cases within a reasonable period of time. In light of the absence of such a remedy, the ECHR noted that said Article 13 had been violated. The claimant will thus receive compensation for his material and moral losses from the French State, it being recalled that the ECHR does not have the power to annul the decisions handed down in violation of the right granted by Article 6, §1,Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 14 of the Convention. However, he will not receive any compensation for the loss of chance, as he did not request the authorisation to continue his activity before the Court or Bankruptcy Judge. This new decision against France handed down by the ECHR, on the triple ground of Articles 6, §1, and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1, recalls the importance granted by the European Court to the measures that must be implemented by the bodies of the liquidation. The multiple constraints in terms of delays imposed by the French legislator, since the Company Safeguard Law no. 2005-845 of 26 July 2005, had already acted in favour of a restriction of the duration of insolvency proceedings. This decision will undoubtedly have a real impact on the future acts of the various parties involved. Virginie Adam virginie.adam@hoganlovells.comParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 15 Mediation in civil and commercial matters: Transposition of the European Directive of 21 May 2008 in French law Directive no. 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (the "Directive") has been transposed in French law by Order no. 2011-1540 of 16 November 2011 (the "Order"). This Order has also been completed by Decree no. 2012-66 of 20 January 2012 (the "Decree"). The purpose of the Directive is to facilitate and promote the use of mediation, while enabling a satisfactory coordination between this alternative method of settling disputes (more commonly referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution "ADR") and judicial proceedings. It relates to cross-border disputes in civil and commercial matters, in fields where the rights of the parties are at their disposal pursuant to the "relevant applicable law" (Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Directive). This Directive mainly provided a definition of mediation common to the European Union and a legal scope ensuring compliance with the parties' right to a fair trial through the intervention of an impartial, competent and diligent third party, as well as the possibility to make the mediation agreement enforceable. In the event of the failure of the mediation, the Directive ensures access to courts in strict compliance with the confidentiality of the mediation. As made possible by the Directive in its Recital 8, the French Government chose to extend, except in matters relating to employment law and administrative public law (insofar as it does not concern any exclusive powers of the State), the transposition of the Directive to purely internal disputes. While this reform effectively enabled to establish common rules to all types of mediation and other ADR, a more thorough analysis shows that its concrete outcome is still limited. The definition of common rules The transposition of the Directive first of all enabled to establish a general legal scope for the various types of ADR, such as mediation resulting from the parties' intention ("contractual mediation"), court-ordered mediation and conciliation resulting from the parties' intention ("contractual conciliation"), i.e. the conciliation that is not led or delegated by the Judge in charge of settling the dispute. Thus, Article 1528 of the French Code of Civil Procedure now provides that "the parties to a dispute can, at their initiative and in the conditions provided for in this Book, attempt to amicably settle such dispute with the assistance of a mediator, judicial conciliator or, in the scope of a participatory procedure, of their Counsel". Pursuant to Article 21 of Law no. 95-125 of 8 February 1995 on the organisation of courts and of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings (the "Law of 8 February 1995"), as amended by the Order, mediation must be understood as "any structured process, regardless of the name given to it, whereby two or several parties attempt to reach an agreement in view of the amicable settlement of their disputes, with the support of a third party, the mediator, chosen by them or appointed, with their consent, by the Judge hearing the matter". The Order thus acknowledges for the first time the contractual mediation led by a third party without any court intervention. The provisions of the Directive on the essential principles governing mediation, i.e. impartiality, competence and diligence of the mediator are also introduced in French law (Article 21-2 of the Law of 8 February 1995). These requirements, which were already included in the National Code of Ethics of Mediators, are thus now established in a law. The principle of confidentiality of the mediation, which was previously only established for court-ordered mediations (Article 131-14 of the French Code of Civil Procedure), is now laid down in general terms and thus applicable to all kinds of mediations. The Decree also created in the French Code of Civil Procedure a Book V entitled "amicable dispute resolution", which includes provisions relating to, notably, contractual mediation and conciliation. With respect to contractual mediation, the Decree specifies the qualities that are required from a mediator1. Lastly, the Order and the Decree have made a great step forward by creating a homologation procedure common to all agreements resulting from the various ADR. In particular, they introduce the possibility to make the agreement resulting from extrajudicial mediation enforceable. Thus, Articles 1565 to 1568 of the French Code of Civil Procedure determine the court with jurisdiction and the procedure to obtain the homologation, as well as the possibility to appeal the decision in the event of a refusal. However, res judicata has not been conferred on this homologated agreement, as only a settlement agreement can currently be conferred such effect. Limited developments The concrete outcome of this reform, however, seems limited, due, first of all to the wording of the Directive, which has only laid down very general principles. The changes implemented by the Order and the Decree also represent only limited progress compared to pre-existent French law. The latter already included rules meeting the requirements of the Directive, notably in matters relating to court-ordered mediation, where a duty of confidentiality was imposed on the mediator and the parties pursuant to former Article 24 of the Law of 8 February 1995. 1 This person must not have been sentenced for any reason, must not have been subject to a legal incapacity or forfeiture mentioned in the Bulletin no. 3 of the criminal record and must have the required qualification in light of the nature of the dispute or be able to prove training or appropriate experience to practice mediation.Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 16 Moreover, neither the Directive, nor the Order, nor the Decree mention independence among the qualities required from the mediator, even though the Report of the Conseil d'Etat (French Administrative Supreme Court) insisted on the importance of this notion2. Pursuant to the wording of the Report to the French President3, "the notion of impartiality is self-sufficient" and the introduction of the notion of independence in the transposition texts "could have rigidified the exercise" of mediation. Yet, the notion of independence goes far beyond the notion of impartiality insofar as it notably implies the absence of any relationship with the parties. It is in fact imposed by the National Code of Ethics of Mediators, as well as by Article 131-5 of the French Code of Civil Procedure with respect to the mediator in court-ordered mediations. Moreover, the Directive as well as its transposition texts do not enable the homologation of the mediation agreement without the consent of the two parties to the agreement (Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Directive, Articles 1534 and 1541 of the French Code of Civil Procedure). The cancellation of this condition to obtain homologation could nevertheless have enabled the enforcement of mediation agreements in the event of a lack of spontaneous enforcement. Lastly, the Directive had provided two exceptions to the principle of confidentiality of mediation, considering that the persons having taken part in the mediation can be required to disclose information or evidence resulting from the mediation, on the one hand, "when this is necessary for overriding considerations of public policy […], in particular when required to ensure the protection of the best interests of children or to prevent harm to the physical or psychological integrity of a person" (Article 7, a), underline added), and, on the other hand, "where disclosure of the content of the agreement resulting from mediation is necessary in order to implement or enforce that agreement" (Article 7, b)). To transpose the first exception, the Order lays down, in Article 21-3 of the Law of 8 February 1995, an exception to the principle of confidentiality "in the presence of overriding considerations of public policy or reasons relating to the protection of the best interests of children or the physical or psychological integrity of a person" (underlines added). The possible breach of the principle of confidentiality of mediation shall thus depend on the extent granted to these exceptions. 2 Report of the Conseil d'Etat, "Develop mediation within the European Union", Study adopted by the General Assembly of the Conseil d'Etat on 29 July 2010, La Documentation Française, p. 26. 3 Report to the French President relating to Order no. 2011-1540 of 16 November 2011 transposing Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters; JORF no. 0266 of 17 November 2011, p. 19.283, text no. 9. The effects of these texts in our legal system thus seem extremely limited. One will have to carefully monitor the evolution of case law that will arise from the general principles thus laid down to more specifically understand the regime applicable to mediation in civil and commercial matters. and Aurélie PatrelleKarine Ponczek karine.ponczek@hoganlovells.comParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 17 Modernisation of pleadings in French civil procedure French civil procedure is currently undergoing significant changes, which notably result from the wish to simplify the legal system and accelerate the handling of cases. In addition to the increasingly generalised dematerialisation of exchanges (see, in this Bulletin, The dematerialisation of French civil procedure: More than ever a reality, by Christelle Coslin and Isabelle Mougin), greater formalism is also being implemented to help judges do their work. This formalism first of all concerns the procedure before Civil Courts and Courts of Appeal (in particular the courts in Paris). Before these Courts, where ad litem representation is, in general, mandatory, the procedure occurs in writing unlike before specialised courts. One example of such specialised courts is Commercial Courts, where the procedure is said to be oral despite the growing importance of pleadings. Obligation to reiterate all claims in the last pleadings Decree no. 2005-1678 of 28 December 2005 on civil procedure, certain enforcement procedures and the procedure to change names is the first text which has brought a certain number of significant modifications on how to formulate claims. The purpose of this Decree was to improve the promptness and quality of the legal system by generalising certain innovative practices of French courts and Bars. To do so, it also relied on part of the propositions of the Magendie report communicated to the French Minister of Justice in September 2004. Since this Decree, before Civil Courts and Courts of Appeal, the use of recapitulative pleadings has become mandatory. The principle is to reiterate in the last pleadings all the claims raised. Failing to do so results in the claims, which have not been reiterated in the last pleadings (called recapitulative submissions), being deemed non-existent. In practice, this leads the parties to file submissions that do not come as an addition to each other but which substitute each other following more or less significant amendments to the previous versions. In this respect, one can note a growing similarity between the courts dealing with written procedures and Commercial Courts. This phenomenon has notably been initiated by Decree no. 2010-1165 of 1st October 2010 on conciliation and oral proceedings in civil, commercial and social matters, as this text, which came into force on 1st December 2010, enables Commercial Courts to prompt the parties to consolidate their pleadings to avoid a succession of autonomous submissions. Due to the generalisation of this practice, parties are strongly recommended to systematically reiterate their claims, evidence and grounds to avoid any confusion as to the scope of the claims, regardless of the court in question. Thus, judges no longer have to refer to different documents to find the claims and can base themselves on only one set of submissions, which simplifies their work. New sources of a growing formalism In line with the Decree of 28 December 2005, a Protocol relating to civil procedure has been signed on 3 June 2008 between the Paris Bar and the Paris Civil Court. In addition to reminders on certain procedural requirements, this text mentions the procedure to implement the principle of concentration in the scope of procedural matters before the Civil Court. The Paris Court of Appeal signed, on 13 December 2001 with seven Bar Presidents of its district, a Protocol on the implementation of the principles of concentration and structuring of pleadings. This Protocol occurs in the scope of the generalisation of electronic communications and follows the reform of civil procedure before the Courts of Appeal (notably the application of Decree no. 2009-1524 of 9 December 2009 on the appellate procedure with mandatory representation, which came into force on 1st January 2011; see Reform of the appellate procedure with mandatory representation, by Christelle Coslin and Constance Tilliard, Paris International Litigation Bulletin, July 2011). Contrary to the rules established by Decree, the recommendations made to practitioners through these Protocols do not come with any sanctions. The scope of the Protocols of 2008 and 2011 is thus still limited. Despite this limited effect, the interest of their clients should lead lawyers to follow the good practices for which judges are yearning. The principle of concentration of pleadings Laid down for the first time by a Plenary Assembly decision of the French Supreme Court of 7 July 2006, in the case referred to as Cesaréo, the principle of concentration consists in imposing on the parties the obligation to bring forward, in the first pleadings they submit, all the facts, grounds and evidence at the basis of their claims. Failing to do so may result in the inadmissibility of the claims. Lawyers are thus required to communicate all the known and available exhibits as soon as possible. The principle of concentration also implies involving, from the start of the proceedings, all the parties concerned by the dispute to avoid third-party claims filed at a later stage. Besides the concentration of the claims, the above-described Protocols also aim at obtaining a more formal concentration of pleadings. In particular, these Protocols advise lawyers to limit the number of submissions filed in the scope of a dispute. Before the Paris Civil Court, the objective is to only have a writ of summons, one set of submissions in response of the defendant(s), one set of submissions in reply of the claimant(s) and a rejoinder of the defendant(s). Similarly, before the Paris Court of Appeal, two sets of submissions perParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 18 party are also recommended. The reform of the appellate procedure, by establishing strict and mandatory calendars, enhances the compliance with such recommendations. The principle of structuring of pleadings Moreover, the structuring, if not standardisation, of pleadings is more and more sought-after. This exercise is all the more important in appellate procedures as Article 954 of the French Code of Civil Procedure imposes a clear distinction between the claims, which must be listed in an exhaustive and precise manner in the operative part, and the grounds supporting the claims, which form the body of the pleadings. Pursuant to this Article, the Court of Appeal, indeed, only has to make a decision on the claims included in the operative part of the pleadings. This part of the submissions thus deserves close attention when being drafted. Indeed, the Protocol of 2011 recommends, when drafting claims, the use of words such as "confirm", "reverse", "dismiss", "order" or "hold and rule" and not "acknowledge" or "note", which do not imply a real decision. This structuring also has a significant impact on the presentation of the grounds. The order of the explanations admittedly often results from the provisions of the French Code of Civil Procedure indicating to raise certain pleas, such as procedural pleas, in limine litis, i.e. before any defence on the merits or any plea of inadmissibility. Yet, the purpose is also, in first instance and in appeal, to ensure that these elements are developed pursuant to a pre-established framework. Compliance with such formalism is presented as the guarantee of a better-quality debate simplifying the drafting of the resulting legal decision. It is from this perspective that the Protocol of 13 December 2011 established a "standard outline" for pleadings before the Paris Court of Appeal, completed by good practices. This outline aims at harmonising the presentation of pleadings by making it similar to the presentation of legal decisions. Pursuant to this outline, a brief and objective statement of the facts, followed by a summary of the main procedural stages of the case, precedes the legal discussion, which may be presented by numbering the different claims. Besides the latter point, numerous lawyers had a similar approach in the presentation of their submissions before the publication of this outline. The latter is, in any case, only a proposition which should not limit the lawyers' freedom to organise the defence of his/her client as he/she wishes. To improve the readability of pleadings is all the more important as at the time of dematerialisation, a growing number of judges admit that they mainly examine pleadings on their computer screens (no longer necessarily on paper). Conclusion It is undeniable that a phenomenon of modernisation, based on harmonised formalism, is currently affecting the way claims are presented before courts in the scope of written procedures, whether with respect to the content or number of pleadings. The different players of the legal system agree on the interest of this evolution of existing practices, often established following a consultation between judges and lawyers. Nevertheless, even though it may simplify the work of judges, this modernisation still raises some concerns. Certain lawyers dismiss the principle of what would be an editorial or procedural constraint which would excessively limit their freedom to act in the interest of their client. The sometimes established similarity with the practices already implemented before the European courts, such as the Court of Justice of the European Union, will not lessen this feeling, when one knows that before this Court, pleadings must meet an extremely standardised format (imposed paper colour and font size or limit of the number of pages). In parallel, some also fear the excessive predominance of written documents and, in fine, the cancellation of the status hearing, which role and course are currently also under discussion. Christelle Coslin christelle.coslin@hoganlovells.com Isabelle Mougin isabelle.mougin@hoganlovells.comParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 19 Translator's Corner: Paralegal Paralegal, originally an English word, is nowadays widely used in France in international law firms, whether in its French unofficial version (it does not have its own entry in French dictionaries) with an accent on the "e" or the English way. Yet, it is hardly heard of in French law firms or in other French industries. Even though people sometimes grasp the general idea, French paralegals are often compared to legal secretaries, who do not have the same roles, responsibilities or education. Unlike in France, British and American paralegals form a recognised profession with official certifications and studies and can even choose to be part of one of the many associations and organisations which guide them and protect the profession. As a consequence of the existence of these associations and organisations in the United Kingdom and in the United States, various definitions of a paralegal exist. For instance, the UK National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP), the leading national paralegal training organisation established in 1987, defines a paralegal as "a person qualified through education and training to perform substantive legal work that requires knowledge of the law and procedures and who is not a qualified solicitor or barrister". In the United States, the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA) is the leading paralegal association and provides education and professional development programmes. It gives the following definition: "legal assistants, also known as paralegals, are a distinguishable group of persons who assist attorneys in the delivery of legal services. Through formal education, training and experience, legal assistants have knowledge and expertise regarding the legal system and substantive and procedural law which qualify them to do work of a legal nature under the supervision of an attorney". Even the American Bar Association has its own definition: "a person qualified by education, training or work experience who is employed or retained by a lawyer, law office, governmental agency or other entity who performs specifically delegated substantive legal work for which a lawyer is responsible". In the United Kingdom and the United States, the concept of legal assistant, which is interchangeable with the term paralegal, emerged in the 60's and the 80's, respectively. From the beginning, paralegals have been fee-earners helping lawyers at a lower cost for clients. As a result of the fast developing profession, organisations such as NALP and NALA offer officially recognised training courses and issue certificates and licences. In the United Kingdom for instance, NALP offers an Undergraduate Diploma in Paralegal Studies as well as a Postgraduate Diploma in Paralegal Practice. At the end of these courses, students are able to bring forward the fact that they are qualified paralegals. These training courses are regulated and recognised by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, which, even though not directly controlled by the British Government, reports to Parliament. In the United States, 260 paralegal courses offered by colleges, universities and law schools or other organisations, are recognised by the American Bar Association. NALA issues certifications obtained following a 2-day examination, which are valid for a period of 5 years. 50 hours of continuing education are then required for recertification. With respect to what paralegals concretely do, the main difference between the United Kingdom and the United States is the US concept of "unauthorised practice of law". Indeed, in the United States, paralegals prepare closings, hearings, trials and meetings, carry out legal research, investigate the facts of cases, conduct client interviews, draft legal documents, attend hearings with lawyers and author and sign correspondence, among other tasks. Yet, in the scope of all communications with clients, it is mandatory that paralegals mention that they have a non-lawyer status. Indeed, US paralegals are prohibited from giving legal advice, directly representing clients in courts, setting fees or directly accepting cases. To the contrary, in the United Kingdom, paralegals are not forbidden from practicing law. This means that in addition to the preparatory work that may also be carried out by a US paralegal, UK paralegals can, in some cases, appear before various district judges, for instance in the scope of interim hearings in litigation matters provided, however, that they are representing their lawyer. In addition to law firms, paralegals may also be found in governmental agencies focusing, for example, in Social Security, family law or health care in the public sector. Their mission, in such contexts, will be, for instance, to carry out research on specific relevant topics and draft legal documents. In France, mostly in Paris, this Anglicism is nearly solely used in international companies and law firms, where the term is already in use in offices in the United Kingdom or the United States, or in specific Anglo-Saxon contexts. The notion of paralegal is not recognised per se as an independent profession in France. As a consequence, there is no formal definition of the term and, therefore, no associations or organisations for paralegals. Yet, due to the increasing internationalisation of law firms, the term paralegal tends to be heard more and more often. People usually get confused as to what a paralegal really is and sometimes wrongfully refer to paralegals as "assistants juridiques". This term, which literally translates as "legal assistant", is not, contrary to the situation in the United States and the United Kingdom, a direct synonym of a paralegal. Indeed, in France, the expression legal assistant is a synonym of legal secretary, i.e. employees in a legal environment in charge of all the tasks that do not require any specific and detailed knowledge of the law. The use of either of these two terms will depend on the companies and law firms and the background of the person uttering them.Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 20 Other words are sometimes used in various French-speaking countries to Gallicise the term paralegal. For instance, the word "parajuriste", solely used in Canada and Africa, which literally translates as "paralawyer" is sometimes used, or the word "adjoint juridique", another way to say "legal assistant", yet without creating the confusion with legal secretary. Furthermore, the French National Law and Procedure School for legal staff (ENADEP) refers to the technical term, which is actually included in the collective agreement applicable to legal personnel, "clerc", i.e. "clerk". However, this latter word is hardly ever used in everyday language in this field, whereas it is a common word and recognised profession in bailiff and notary firms. There are various possibilities to become a paralegal in France. One of the main requirements is, however, to have a certain knowledge of the law. Some paralegals, therefore, follow law studies up to a certain level before entering a law firm. This enables them to do more specific, detailed and technical work compared to legal secretaries, as they better understand the law, the issues at stake and the possible solutions to a case. Oftentimes, a lot of paralegals start their career as legal secretaries before choosing to specialise to be given tasks with more responsibility. To obtain the additional knowledge and technical skills, one of the solutions offered to future paralegals of law firms is to register with the ENADEP. This professional school offers in-depth courses addressing all areas of the law, preparing students to become both legal secretaries and paralegals. Courses last between 2 to 5 years depending on the chosen orientation and level of expertise and result in students obtaining a diploma that is recognised by law firms when examining applications. However, this diploma is not officially recognised by the State. The mission of a paralegal in France is closer to the role of a paralegal in the United States. Indeed, in addition to the preparatory work helping lawyers in specific cases by carrying out research, drafting legal documents, coordinating the activities of other employees, authoring and sending correspondence with, at the beginning of the relationship, the indication of the non-lawyer status, French paralegals can attend hearings and trials with their lawyer. Yet, they cannot directly represent clients before courts. Like in the United Kingdom and in the United States, French paralegals are most of the time fee-earners, billing their work at a lower rate than lawyers. As you can see, while the term paralegal is officially recognised and common in the United States and in the United Kingdom, which means that it is easily understood, there is still a long way to go in France before the profession becomes well known. Furthermore, as a consequence of the lack of a formal and widespread definition in France, it is rather difficult to find a translation that could be used and understood by everyone. Indeed, in France, the term paralegal will be understood without any difficulty in an international context, but when speaking to lawyers working for a strictly French law firm, you might have to use another word to be fully understood. A suggestion would be to use the general term "assistant juridique", bearing in mind the fact that it is not the same as a legal secretary, for which the direct translation "secrétaire juridique" could be used. 11 With the contribution of Isabelle Mougin, Paralegal in the Litigation team of Hogan Lovells' Paris office. Lorène Mazet1 lorene.mazet@hoganlovells.comParis International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 21 Many thanks to our contributors: Thomas Rouhette, Partner thomas.rouhette@hoganlovells.com Thomas leads the Hogan Lovells Litigation team in Paris, one of the largest on the Paris market. He frequently appears before the French Commercial, Civil and Criminal Courts on behalf of leading French and international clients in matters concerning aviation, automotive, industrial equipment, consumer goods and telecommunications. He provides assistance in all disputes relating to commercial contracts, product liability/product safety (including advising on the effect of regulations, assisting with products recalls and responding to the demands of regulatory authorities), unfair competition, insurance/reinsurance, transportation law, and industrial risks litigation. He regularly handles cross-border disputes in liaison with practitioners in other jurisdictions. Christine Gateau, Partner christine.gateau@hoganlovells.com Christine is a Litigation partner in the firm's Paris office. Christine specialises in product liability litigation and in claims arising from commercial contracts, especially in the TMT and energy sectors. She has broad experience in defending online marketplaces against allegations regarding the sale of counterfeit items or the breach of selective distribution networks on the websites they host. Christophe Garin, Counsel christophe.garin@hoganlovells.com Christophe is a Counsel in the Commercial Litigation practice of Hogan Lovells' Paris office. He intervenes in all aspects of the defence of the firm's clients in the scope of their tort and/or contracts litigation. His interventions include pre-trial negotiation and alternative dispute resolution, interim and provisional measures, the participation in amicable and court-ordered expert proceedings, the representation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts. Within the scope of his product liability activity, Christophe has developed a specific expertise in defending machinery manufacturers. Virginie Adam, Senior Associate virginie.adam@hoganlovells.com Virginie is part of the Litigation practice of Hogan Lovells' Paris office. She represents and provides assistance to the firm's clients in litigation relating to commercial contracts, torts as well as professional indemnity and environmental risks. She developed a specific expertise in product liability litigation and product safety issues, in particular in the automotive industry. Virginie also has an extensive practice of insolvency litigation. Cécile Di Meglio, Senior Associate cecile.dimeglio@hoganlovells.com Cécile, qualified as an attorney in both France and New York, is part of the Litigation practice of the Paris office of Hogan Lovells and regularly advises clients on international jurisdiction, choice-of-law, international discovery and other issues arising in international litigation matters. She has developed a specific expertise in product liability issues, especially in the aviation industry.Paris International Litigation Bulletin no. 3 22 Christelle Coslin, Senior Associate christelle.coslin@hoganlovells.com Christelle is part of the Litigation practice of the Paris office of Hogan Lovells and regularly advises clients on jurisdiction, choice-of-law and international litigation issues. She has broad experience in commercial litigation and product liability issues, with a focus on e-commerce disputes. Karine Ponczek, Associate karine.ponczek@hoganlovells.com Karine is part of the Litigation practice of the Paris office of Hogan Lovells and regularly advises clients on international jurisdiction, choice of law, international discovery and other issues arising in international litigation matters. She also specialises in white-collar crime cases. Pauline Blondet, Associate pauline.blondet@hoganlovells.com Pauline is an Attorney qualified to practice in Paris and New York. As an associate within the Litigation team of Hogan Lovells' Paris Office, she intervenes in commercial litigation, notably in the defence of e-commerce platforms in tort litigations initiated by right owners. She also specialises in white-collar crime litigation. Delphine Lapillonne, Associate delphine.lapillonne@hoganlovells.com Delphine joined the Litigation team of Hogan Lovells' Paris office in 2010. She advises clients on jurisdiction issues and specialises in commercial litigation and product liability, with a focus on asbestos-related issues. Isabelle Mougin, Paralegal isabelle.mougin@hoganlovells.com Isabelle is a paralegal in the Litigation practice of Hogan Lovells' Paris office. She provides assistance to the firm's clients in all types of commercial and product liability litigation. She specialises in the management of litigation before the French Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts (international notifications, enforcement proceedings, recovery of debt....) and in particular in the management and follow-up of data relating to plaintiffs in the scope of multi-party disputes. Lorène Mazet, Paralegal lorene.mazet@hoganlovells.com Lorène is a French and English native paralegal/translator in the Litigation practice of Hogan Lovells' Paris office. She is in charge of the translation of all kinds of legal documents (submissions, decisions, expert reports, memos, etc.) and also assists the team by proof-reading a broad range of materials. Lorène works in French, English and Italian, with a specialisation in translations into English. Aurélie Patrelle, Traineewww.hoganlovells.com Hogan Lovells has offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Brussels Budapest* Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston Jakarta* Jeddah* London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Riyadh* Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Zagreb* "Hogan Lovells" or the "firm" is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses. The word "partner" is used to describe a partner or member of Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP or any of their affiliated entities or any employee or consultant with equivalent standing. Certain individuals, who are designated as partners, but who are not members of Hogan Lovells International LLP, do not hold qualifications equivalent to members. For more information about Hogan Lovells, the partners and their qualifications, see www.hoganlovells.com. Where case studies are included, results achieved do not guarantee similar outcomes for other clients. Attorney Advertising. © Hogan Lovells 2012. All rights reserved. *Associated offices
Download Word[1214KB]
Published In: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Conflict of Laws Updates, Criminal Law Updates, Business Torts Updates