• news-banner

    Expert Insights

France brings up to date its Blocking Statute against foreign discovery proceedings

A specific and extremely original French regulation impacting proceedings carried out outside of France against French parties has recently been updated. Litigation lawyers must be aware of these provisions, as the enforcement of this Statute can have critical consequences in court cases involving French parties.

In 1968, France implemented a unique piece of legislation. The “Loi de Blocage” (Blocking Statute) created a set of rules purportedly designed to protect national sensitive business-related information by preventing its use as evidence in foreign pre-trial and litigation proceedings, targeting the United States’ broad discovery rules.

As a result, French parties are prohibited from providing “sensitive evidence” related to economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical information in foreign proceedings outside the scope of Letters of Request, which are regulated by the Hague Convention of March 18th, 1970.

The scope of the “sensitive information” covered by this text is so large that in essence, a French party sued before a foreign court can refuse to testify or disclose evidence, arguing that they are legally forbidden to do so under the Loi de Blocage.

Failure to comply with these legal provisions can result in criminal charges for French citizens, punishable by imprisonment and/or fines up to 18.000 €.

Yet violations of this Statute have, to this day, rarely been prosecuted in France, and have even more rarely resulted in convictions.

As a direct consequence of the lack of enforcement of the Statute by French authorities, U.S. courts were reluctant to acknowledge the Loi de Blocage as a legitimate shield against their evidence discovery proceedings.

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a balancing test[1] to evaluate whether the Statute could effectively be enforced in American cross-border discovery proceedings. Applications of this case-law has shown in the following years that the interests attached to discovery often prevail over the French Blocking Statute before American courts, considering the Statute to be too little of a threat.

As a result, the Blocking Statute has failed to live up to its ambitions.

However, in the last few years, French lawmakers have passed several amendments to this Statute, with the idea that a stronger implementation of the regulation in France is bound to increase its effectiveness and authority abroad.

An amendment to the Blocking Statute was last passed in February[2]. A designated department within the Ministry of Finance was created and is now in charge of handling applications from French citizens faced with evidence discovery proceedings that could lead to a breach of their duties under the Loi de Blocage. Official opinions on the application of the Statute will now be issued by the Ministry upon request, and theses opinions will potentially be turned over to foreign courts if disputes arise regarding the disclosure of evidence.

These new provisions will come into force on April 1st of 2022.

The passing of this decree confirms that France wants to strengthen the Statute and enhance its enforcement abroad. Issuing official opinions against American discovery orders will force U.S. courts to reconsider their own assessment of the Blocking Statute.  

Legal counsels acting on behalf of or against French parties in trials taking place abroad, especially in the United States, should therefore keep in mind that the Blocking Statute can be used as a defence mechanism during discovery proceedings and anticipate their consequences on the evidentiary process.

[1] Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987)
[2] Décret n° 2022-207 du 18 février 2022 relatif à la communication de documents et renseignements d'ordre économique, commercial, industriel, financier ou technique à des personnes physiques ou morales étrangères

Our thinking

  • Paramount launches hostile bid for the entirety of Warner Bros

    Grace Hudson

    Quick Reads

  • DMCCA: What the UK’s new consumer rules now mean for consumer facing businesses

    Mark Dewar

    Insights

  • Transactions at an undervalue: trusts of land

    Roger Elford

    Insights

  • Ministry of Sound Limited v. The British Foreign Wharf Company Limited (and ors): Balancing terms of a renewal lease with redevelopment potential

    Grace O'Leary

    Quick Reads

  • Advocacy: Lessons from The Mandela Brief for International Arbitration Today

    Jue Jun Lu

    Events

  • Promises and probate: when is “detriment” worth the family farm and what happens when a promise is only relied on for a defined period?

    Matthew Clark

    Insights

  • Bitter taxation pills to swallow, arguably all the more indigestible for those separating or divorcing

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • Dewdney Drew writes for the AI Journal on AI actors and the legal hurdles facing a digital revolution

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

  • Farming on a handshake? What happens when things go wrong?

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • LIIARC Tax Investigations Uncovered: Legal Tactics, Courtroom Trends & Strategic Remedies

    Caroline Greenwell

    Events

  • Disputes Over Donuts: AI in Arbitration - Innovation, Risk, and the Road Ahead

    Thomas R. Snider

    Podcasts

  • Law 360 quotes Caroline Greenwell on the BHP dam case and legal risks for UK businesses

    Caroline Greenwell

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys named 'Most Innovative Firm of the Year’ and wins 'Best Use Case in AI' award at the Legal Technology Awards 2025

    Joe Cohen

    News

  • Claudine Morgan writes for The Law Society Gazette on Trump V BBC – what a UK defamation fight would really look like…

    Claudine Morgan

    In the Press

  • India-UAE BIT 2024: What to Expect When You’re Investing

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Harnessing the Law: Equine Impoundment and Fly-Grazing Challenges

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • Appointing a Director

    Stephen Burns

    Insights

  • Trump v BBC? What a UK Defamation Fight Would Really Look Like

    Claudine Morgan

    Quick Reads

  • Navigating Regulation (EU) 2019/880: implementation in Italy and competent authorities for the New European Framework for Importing Works of Arts

    Maria Cristiana Felisi

    Quick Reads

  • Energy Arbitration: Navigating Disputes in a Transforming Global Sector

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

Back to top