The French blocking statute and disclosure in foreign proceedings

Evidence sought in France for foreign proceedings may fall under the French blocking statute, Law No. 68-678 of 26 July 1968. The statute criminalises requesting, seeking or communicating economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical documents or information for that purpose. The ban yields to treaties, including the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention, and to the laws and regulations in force.

The French blocking statute bars seeking or disclosing certain business information as evidence for foreign proceedings

Article 1 bis of the French blocking statute forbids any person to request, seek or communicate documents or information of an economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical nature intended to build evidence for foreign judicial or administrative proceedings, subject to treaties, international agreements and the laws and regulations in force.

Inserted by Law No. 80-538 of 16 July 1980, Article 1 bis reads: “Subject to international treaties or agreements and to the laws and regulations in force, any person is prohibited from requesting, seeking or communicating, in writing, orally or in any other form, documents or information of an economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical nature with a view to constituting evidence for foreign judicial or administrative proceedings or in the course of such proceedings” (our translation).

The ban reaches whoever asks for the material, not only whoever hands it over. Article 1 bis covers only the five listed kinds of information, gathered as evidence for proceedings abroad, before or during them. The prohibition yields to treaties, such as the Hague Evidence Convention. Its reservation extends to the laws and regulations in force, so French law stays in play, including the rules on how civil proceedings run in France.

Article 1 has a narrower target: foreign public authorities. Article 1 bars French nationals and habitual residents of France from giving such information to those authorities anywhere, subject to treaties or international agreements. The same bar binds the officers, representatives, agents or employees of a legal entity with its seat or an establishment in France. That ban applies only where the communication is liable to harm France’s sovereignty, security, essential economic interests or public order, as specified by the administrative authority where necessary. Article 1 bis is the provision invoked in the French decisions discussed in this guide.

Breaching the blocking statute is a criminal offence, as the 2007 Christopher X case shows

Article 3 of the French blocking statute punishes any breach of Articles 1 and 1 bis with six months’ imprisonment and a fine of 18,000 euros, or one of these two penalties only, without prejudice to heavier penalties provided by law.

The Cour de cassation upheld a conviction on this basis in 2007 (Cass. crim., 12 December 2007, No. 07-83.228, published in the Bulletin). A federal court in California was hearing a dispute between that State’s insurance commissioner and the French insurer MAAF over the takeover of Executive Life, a life insurer. In 2000, the court issued letters of request (commissions rogatoires) to obtain MAAF documents under the Hague Evidence Convention.

Christopher X., the lawyer acting in France as correspondent of the commissioner’s US lawyer, then contacted a former MAAF director. The French correspondent sought information on how the board had taken its decisions when Executive Life was acquired. MAAF filed a criminal complaint as civil party, and a judicial investigation (information judiciaire) followed. On 28 March 2007, the Paris Court of Appeal (cour d’appel de Paris) fined the correspondent 10,000 euros.

The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal. Its official summary holds that such steps amount to seeking information under Article 1 bis to build evidence for foreign proceedings. Such a person commits the offence under Article 3 when acting “without having an authorised mandate provided for by the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970” (our translation).

The Californian court had itself used the Convention route. What the French courts punished was a parallel, informal approach made in France outside that route, not international judicial cooperation as such. Published criminal case law applying the statute appears to remain scarce.

Since April 2022, the statute’s duty to report a request runs through the SISSE

Article 2 of the French blocking statute requires persons bound by Articles 1 and 1 bis to report a request for such communications without delay. Since 1 April 2022, Decree No. 2022-207 names the minister for the economy and routes the report to the Strategic Information and Economic Security Service (SISSE).

That minister informs the ministers for foreign affairs and justice without delay, and where relevant the minister overseeing the person’s activity. The SISSE (service de l’information stratégique et de la sécurité économiques) was created in 2019 and reports to the Director General for Enterprise. Among other missions, the SISSE oversees how persons bound by the 1968 statute apply it, in consultation with the ministries concerned, subject to powers the law confers on another authority and, where relevant, in liaison with that authority.

Article 2 of the decree targets a request issued by a foreign public authority, or by a person acting on its behalf or to meet its request. The statute itself refers to any request concerning such communications. Under Article 3 of the decree, the request goes to the SISSE without delay, followed as soon as possible by a dossier.

An order of 7 March 2022 sets the minimum content of that dossier. The dossier covers the company holding the requested documents or information: its trade and companies register (RCS) number, an organisation chart identifying the persons who control it and the legal entities it controls within the meaning of Article L. 233-3 of the French Commercial Code, a brief description of its activities, including in France and in the State associated with the requesting party, and its main French and foreign competitors. It also sets out the grounds of the request, the exchanges with the requesting party and the contact details of a person designated within the company. The materials must be delivered without delay, in a readily usable format, through secure physical or electronic means. The decree organises reporting; it does not present the filing as permission to disclose.

The Hague Evidence Convention offers a lawful route to evidence held in France

Articles 1 and 1 bis of the French blocking statute apply subject to international treaties or agreements, and the Hague Evidence Convention, a 1970 treaty on taking evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters, lets a foreign court obtain evidence held in France by letter of request.

The 2007 Christopher X conviction, described above, turned precisely on the absence of an authorised mandate under the Convention. Whether the Convention is the only route is less clear, because a 2023 order discussed in the next section called it “optional” (our translation).

France executes letters of request for discovery only for listed documents

Article 23 of the Convention gives each State an option, not a duty: “A Contracting State may at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that it will not execute Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in Common Law countries.”

France made that declaration, then amended it on 19 January 1987. The French declaration no longer applies “when the requested documents are enumerated limitatively in the Letter of Request and have a direct and precise link with the object of the procedure”. Both conditions must be met.

Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 governs taking evidence between Member State courts

Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 of 25 November 2020 applies in civil or commercial matters when a Member State court, under its own law, asks the competent court of another Member State to take evidence, or requests the taking of evidence directly in another Member State. The evidence must be intended for use in judicial proceedings already commenced or contemplated. A court in the United States or the United Kingdom cannot use this route.

French courts disagree on disclosure ordered under Article 145 for foreign proceedings

Two chambers of the Paris Court of Appeal disagree on whether Article 1 bis of the French blocking statute prevents a French judge from ordering disclosure for proceedings abroad under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile, CPC), and no ruling of the Cour de cassation settling the point has been identified.

The first decision, Veolia Environnement v. Bracap (order of 12 January 2023, RG No. 22/16847), is not a ruling on the merits. The First President’s delegate (Pôle 1, chamber 5) refused to stay provisional enforcement of a summary order requiring Veolia, as a measure of inquiry before any trial, to produce documents linked to proceedings in Argentina. Article 1 bis “is not such as to prevent an application to the interim relief judge under Article 145”, the court held, because Veolia had shown no risk of criminal liability for itself or its managers. The 2023 order also called the Convention route “optional” and noted “sometimes contradictory” case law (our translations).

A 2026 ruling of the same court went the other way (Pôle 1, chamber 3, 22 January 2026, RG No. 25/07085, CLD and IDD v. Athar Saudi Trading). A Saudi distributor had made an Article 145 request ahead of an arbitration. The request against CLD, for proceedings “which will be conducted in France”, did not conflict with the statute, but failed for lack of a legitimate motive. Against IDD, the court confirmed the refusal “in view of possible foreign proceedings” and “by application of Article 1 bis” (our translations). Where the proceedings take place decided the point, not where an award might be enforced.

Alstom v. Maydex left the question open. The Paris Court of Appeal (Pôle 1, chamber 2, 24 January 2019, RG No. 18/15348) set aside an Article 145 measure because ordering it without notice was unjustified, leaving Alstom’s Article 1 bis argument unanswered. The Cour de cassation (2nd civil chamber, 19 November 2020, No. 19-12.086) dismissed the further appeal without mentioning the statute.

The 2023 order sets Article 1 bis aside, whereas the 2026 ruling applies it. The point is not settled.

Foreign counsel seeking evidence from a French party should choose the route before asking

Since Article 1 bis of the French blocking statute forbids any person to request or seek, and not only to communicate, economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical information to build evidence for foreign proceedings, the prudent course for foreign counsel is to choose the route first: a letter of request under the Hague Evidence Convention.

The 2007 Christopher X case shows the pattern to avoid: a direct, informal approach to a person in France, made alongside the Convention route rather than through it.

France’s amended declaration under Article 23 of the Convention sets the drafting standard. The letter of request should list the documents limitatively, each with a direct and precise link to the object of the proceedings. A request built on open categories fails the first condition.

Nor is an application to a French judge under Article 145 CPC a settled alternative, because two formations of the Paris Court of Appeal reached opposite results in 2023 and 2026. Instruct a French lawyer to plan the request before any contact in France.