For a complete overview of the authority's remit, sanction categories and intervention processes, please consult our comprehensive guide to the AMF's sanctioning powers. When the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) issues a sanction decision, it is legitimate to ask what avenues of appeal are available and how the judicial system intervenes. These decisions, which can have significant repercussions for individuals, small business owners and professionals in the financial sector, are subject to rigorous judicial review. Understanding the mechanisms of this review, the deadlines to be respected and the role of the various courts is essential for everyone concerned.
As an independent public authority, the AMF has administrative and disciplinary powers, the distinction and scope of which are crucial in arguing a claimThese sanctions are designed to ensure the smooth operation of the markets and protect investors. However, the French legal system offers important safeguards, enabling these sanctions to be challenged before the courts. This article explores the judicial review of AMF decisions, detailing changes in jurisdictional powers, the parties entitled to take action, appeal procedures and the scope of the judge's power.
The evolution and complexity of jurisdiction over AMF decisions
The history of financial regulation in France and its judicial review has been marked by constant adaptation. Prior to the Financial Security Act 2003-706 of 1 August 2003, the division of jurisdiction between the courts and the administrative courts was already in place, but was often based on the nature of the contested decision or the issuing authority. With the creation of the AMF, resulting from the merger of several entities, the legislator sought to rationalise this control, while maintaining a specific jurisdictional dualism.
The Financial Security Act and subsequent legislation have changed the distribution key, introducing a fundamental distinction: the court with jurisdiction now depends primarily on the status of the person sanctioned, rather than the intrinsic nature of the sanction or the act complained of. This criterion, far from being insignificant, determines the entire appeals procedure and the substantive rules applicable. This approach is designed to provide a better framework for the AMF's actions, while complying with the main principles of French law.
Dual jurisdiction: Paris Court of Appeal and Council of State
The division of jurisdiction is clear and set out in the Monetary and Financial Code. On the one hand, the Paris Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeals against AMF decisions concerning individuals or legal entities that are not financial market professionals. This includes, for example, private individuals or small organisations that find themselves implicated in financial market misconduct. The choice of the Paris Court of Appeal is in line with the principle of proximity to the financial world and the specialisation of judicial jurisdictions.
Secondly, the Conseil d'État is the appeal court for AMF decisions concerning financial sector professionals. This category is broad and includes investment services providers, management companies, market undertakings and other regulated market participants listed in Article L. 621-9 of the Monetary and Financial Code. This dual jurisdiction raises important issues, particularly in terms of harmonising case law and applying the fundamental principles of due process. The fact that the Conseil d'État is the final court of appeal for these professionals means that its decision is final, with no possibility of appeal to the Court of Cassation. This division is spelled out in Articles L. 621-30 and R. 621-45 of the Monetary and Financial Code, which are the cornerstone of this jurisdictional architecture.
Who can appeal against an AMF sanction decision?
The question of who is entitled to lodge an appeal against an AMF sanction decision is a fundamental one and is precisely defined by law. Naturally, the person directly sanctioned by the AMF, whether an individual or a legal entity, is the first and foremost party entitled to challenge the decision. This right of appeal is a fundamental guarantee of the protection of their rights.
For third parties, such as investors or their associations, the possibilities for recourse are much more limited. Unlike some criminal proceedings, where a civil party can intervene to defend injured interests, the AMF's sanctions framework does not offer an equivalent mechanism for third parties. There is no general category of "other interested parties" with a right of appeal against the sanction decision itself. Group actions are still underdeveloped in this area.
The public prosecutor may intervene in these appeals, but his role is distinct. Under Article R. 621-46 V of the Monetary and Financial Code, the public prosecutor is notified of appeals and may decide whether to intervene in the interests of public order. However, unlike the person sanctioned, the Ombudsman has no independent right to lodge an appeal against the AMF's sanction decision. Instead, it supports or observes ongoing proceedings.
Lastly, the Banking and Financial Regulation Act of 22 October 2010 consolidated the right of appeal of one key player: the AMF Chairman. With the authorisation of the AMF Board, he may now lodge an appeal against the decisions of the Enforcement Committee, either on his own initiative or in response to an appeal by the person sanctioned. This prerogative, enshrined in Article L. 621-30, paragraph 2, of the Monetary and Financial Code, illustrates the AMF's desire to be able to defend its own decisions before the appeal courts, although it is important to note that the reverse is not true: the sanctioned person may not appeal to the Court of Appeal in response to an AMF appeal against the same decision.
Time limits and effect of appeals: stay of execution and interim injunction
There are strict deadlines for lodging an appeal against an AMF sanction decision, and it is essential to understand the impact of these deadlines. The general time limit for lodging an appeal is two months from notification of the sanction decision. This deadline, set out in Article R. 621-44 of the Monetary and Financial Code, is imperative: an appeal lodged after the deadline would be inadmissible, depriving the appellant of any possibility of contesting the decision.
A notable feature of these appeals is that they have no automatic suspensive effect. This means that, as a matter of principle, an AMF sanction decision is immediately enforceable, even if an appeal is lodged. This rule derogates from the general principle of administrative law, which is that the lodging of an appeal has suspensive effect. Article L. 621-30 of the Monetary and Financial Code expressly states that there is no automatic stay, leaving it to the court to decide otherwise. This is where the mechanisms of stay of execution or summary suspension come into play, depending on the court with jurisdiction.
Stay of execution before the courts
For appeals falling within the jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal (generally for non-professionals), the person penalised may apply for a stay of execution. Article L. 621-30 of the Monetary and Financial Code states that the court may order a stay if the decision is "likely to entail manifestly excessive consequences". This notion is assessed on a case-by-case basis by the First President of the Court of Appeal or his delegate.
Case law, in particular that of the Cour de cassation, has defined the boundaries of these "manifestly excessive consequences". A frequently encountered case is that of the publication of sanction decisions. Premature publication, before a final court decision, can cause irreversible damage to the reputation of a person or company on the financial market, making economic activity difficult or even impossible. The Court of Cassation has also emphasised that the first president has the power to suspend the publication measure alone if it is likely to have such consequences, even if the substance of the sanction has not yet been decided (Cass. com., 17 March 2015, no. 14-11.630). However, the assessment may vary, and there may be differences of interpretation on this criterion between the different chambers or even within the same court.
Suspension proceedings before the administrative courts
When the appeal is lodged with the Conseil d'État (for professionals), the applicable procedure is that of summary suspension, provided for in the Code of Administrative Justice. For a summary suspension to be granted, two cumulative conditions must be met, as the Conseil d'État has repeatedly pointed out (CE, 17 May 2019, no. 428997): urgency and serious doubt as to the legality of the contested decision.
The condition of urgency is generally met if the sanction decision, by its nature or effects, causes immediate and serious harm to the applicant's interests. Serious doubt as to legality" requires that the applicant be able to present relevant and substantiated arguments that, without prejudging the merits of the case, point to the possible illegality of the AMF's decision. These may include procedural flaws (failure to respect the rights of the defence, bias), an error in the assessment of the facts, or a disproportionate sanction. These conditions are interpreted strictly by the administrative judge, who exercises a thorough review of such applications.
Appeal procedures: procedure before the Paris Court of Appeal and the Conseil d'État
The procedure for appealing against AMF sanctions, whether before the Paris Court of Appeal or the Conseil d'État, is governed by precise rules. The process begins with the filing of a written statement. Before the Paris Court of Appeal, four copies of the statement must be filed with the court registry, together with a detailed statement of reasons and all relevant exhibits and documents. This must be filed within the two-month period mentioned above. The registry then forwards a copy of the statement to the AMF and the public prosecutor's office. For a full understanding of the stages preceding this appeal, and in order to identify the points of contestation, it is essential to master Key stages in the AMF sanction procedure.
The First President of the Paris Court of Appeal sets the deadlines for written submissions between the parties (claimant, AMF, any interveners) and the date of the hearing. The hearing is an opportunity for the parties to present their arguments orally. The AMF's rapporteur presents the case, after which the AMF Board representative may present observations in support of the notified complaints or propose a sanction. The respondent, assisted by its lawyer, presents its defence. The public prosecutor has the last word, thereby ensuring that the principles of due process are respected. After examining the case, the Court of Appeal may uphold the AMF's decision, set it aside or reverse it in whole or in part, either in favour of or against the person sanctioned. The decisions of the Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Commercial Division of the Court of Cassation.
Appeals before the Conseil d'État follow the rules of the Code of Administrative Justice, with a similar process involving the submission of briefs, exchanges of documents and a hearing. The Conseil d'État, acting as a court of full jurisdiction, reviews both the legality and the appropriateness of the sanction.
Specific features of proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal
Although the procedure before the Paris Court of Appeal is generally straightforward, there are formal requirements that should not be underestimated. The statement of appeal, for example, must be lodged in person at the court registry, and not simply by registered letter or fax, on pain of inadmissibility. The statement of grounds, which sets out the appellant's arguments in detail, must be attached to the initial statement or lodged within a very short deadline (fifteen days), failing which the appeal may be rejected. This procedural rigour underlines the importance of expert legal support from the earliest stages.
Once the appeal has been registered, the hearing process allows the parties to submit written observations. The First President of the Court of Appeal plays a central role in setting deadlines and ordering any additional investigative measures. The hearing, a key moment in the proceedings, provides an opportunity for an adversarial exchange in which each party develops its arguments. The decision handed down by the Court of Appeal may confirm the AMF's sanction, annul it altogether, or reverse it in part (for example, reduce the amount of the fine or remove a prohibition). The role of the Court of Appeal is to exercise complete control over the contested decision.
Full review: scope of the judge's power
One of the most protective aspects of judicial review of AMF sanction decisions is that they are "recours de pleine juridiction". Whether it is the Paris Court of Appeal or the Conseil d'État, the judge hearing the case does not simply check the formal legality of the decision (for example, whether the rules of procedure have been complied with). It goes further and reviews the entire dispute, both procedurally and substantively.
In practical terms, this means that the judge can examine :
- **Compliance with procedure:** The Ombudsman checks that all rights of defence have been guaranteed, that the impartiality of AMF bodies has been ensured, and that the formal rules have been properly applied (notification of complaints, access to file, right to be heard, etc.). Any serious irregularity may result in the decision being annulled.
- **Establishing the facts:** The judge re-examines whether the facts alleged against the sanctioned person have been materially established and whether the AMF has correctly assessed the evidence. If necessary, the judge may order further investigations.
- **Legal classification of the facts:** It checks whether the facts established constitute a breach of European regulations, laws or professional rules, as alleged by the AMF.
- **Attribution of the facts:** The judge ensures that the breaches can be attributed to the accused person, in particular by taking into account the principle of the individual nature of penalties.
- **The proportionality of the sanction:** This is an essential point. The judge checks that the penalty imposed (amount of the fine, ban on practising) is proportionate to the seriousness of the breach, the status and degree of involvement of the person concerned, his financial situation, any benefits obtained, and the corrective measures taken. The judge may reform the penalty if he deems it excessive or insufficient. It is important to note that this review can also address complex issues such as the non bis in idem principle and the accumulation of MFA and criminal sanctions, a major issue in judicial review which is the subject of an in-depth analysis.
Full judicial review gives the court the power to reverse a decision: it is not limited to annulling the decision, but can amend it to replace it with a fairer decision, thus offering a substantial review procedure and a strong guarantee for those penalised.
The essential support of a banking and finance lawyer
Appealing an AMF sanction decision is a complex procedure, fraught with legal and procedural subtleties. Mastering the deadlines, understanding the criteria for a stay of execution or interim suspension, and building a solid defence on the merits and proportionality of the sanction all require advanced legal expertise. The duality of the jurisdictions (Paris Court of Appeal and Conseil d'Etat), with their specific rules and distinct case law, adds a layer of complexity that cannot be tackled without expert support.
A lawyer specialising in banking and finance law will provide you with in-depth knowledge of the applicable legislation, the case law of the various courts and the practices of the AMF. He or she will help you to analyse the complaints precisely, identify any procedural flaws, prepare a well-argued appeal and represent you effectively before the relevant court. His role is to ensure that your case is secure, to maximise your chances of success and to protect your interests as effectively as possible in the face of decisions that may have a considerable impact on your professional activity or personal situation, including the defence of your rights. securities and legal guarantees. This is essential strategic advice for navigating this demanding regulatory landscape.
If you are faced with a sanction decision by the AMF or if you wish to anticipate such situations by securing your practices, do not hesitate to contact our firm. Our team of banking and finance lawyers is at your disposal for an in-depth analysis of your situation and personalised support.
Sources
- Monetary and Financial Code
- Commercial code
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- Code of administrative justice
- European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
- Financial Security Act No. 2003-706 of 1 August 2003
- Banking and Financial Regulation Act 2010-1249 of 22 October 2010
- Law 2016-819 of 21 June 2016 reforming the system for preventing market abuse
- Law 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernisation of economic life (Sapin II Law)
- Act no. 2019-486 of 22 May 2019 on the growth and transformation of businesses (PACTE Act)
EN 
FR