FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Christophe Ingrain, Tristan Gautier and Benoît Martinez, Darrois Villey Maillot & Brochier
Use by Authorities French authorities have incorporated AI into several administrative and judicial functions. The General Directorate of Public Finances (DGFiP) has deployed projects such as Ciblage de la fraude et valorisation des requêtes (CFVR) to improve tax fraud detection and control operations. In 2024, the Ministry of Justice announced an AI plan focusing on four use cases: automatic transcription of interviews, legal research assistance, translation and case summaries. A tran - scription tool is expected to be operational in 2025. The use of AI for surveillance has raised significant debates in France. The experimentation with tools such as the facial recognition software BriefCam, reportedly used by French police for video surveil - lance without prior declaration, triggered an adminis - trative investigation by the Interior Ministry and a con - trol procedure by the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) (see CNIL Decision No MED-2024-150 of 15 November 2024). Internal Investigations and Corporate Use Authorities may consider the results of AI-based internal investigations conducted by companies as supporting material. However, such internal findings do not substitute judicial investigations; they may serve as supporting evidence but remain subject to independent assessment by the prosecutor or judge. Companies must also comply with labour law and data protection rules when deploying AI monitoring systems. 2.5 Internal Investigations While there is no single statute that imposes a general statutory obligation on companies to conduct inter - nal investigations, several legal sources (labour law, anti-corruption legislation, and regulatory guidance) impose duties or expectations on companies. The Sapin II Law requires companies with more than 500 employees or a consolidated turnover exceed - ing EUR100 million to establish an internal whistle- blowing system (Article 17). Once a report is received, the company must conduct an internal investigation to verify the allegations, take corrective or disciplinary measures, and manage its legal risks.
In addition, the Labour Code ( Code du travail CT) requires employers to conduct investigations in response to alerts from the Social and Economic Committee (CSE), particularly in cases of imminent and serious danger or when employees’ rights are at stake (Articles L. 2312-59 and L. 4132-2, CT). These investigations must be conducted jointly with employ - ee representatives. In their Guidelines on internal investigations, revised in March 2023, the AFA and the PNF indicate that internal investigations combined with early and proac - tive co-operation with authorities may mitigate sanc - tions of legal entities: companies facing prosecution can obtain significant reductions in fines through a deferred prosecution agreement (CJIP) if they dem - onstrate that they have investigated misconduct inter - nally and co-operated with judicial authorities. Under these guidelines, self-reporting to judicial authorities is now considered an important mitigating factor of the financial sanctions that may be imposed, although self-reporting remains optional. Data Protection and Labour Law Considerations Internal investigations necessarily involve process - ing personal data and are therefore subject to the GDPR and the French Loi Informatique et Libertés . The CNIL’s 2023 guidelines on whistle-blowing require strict limits on data collection, retention, and access. From a labour law perspective, employees must be informed of the existence and purpose of investiga - tive measures (Article L. 1222-4, CT and Article 5, GDPR), unless this would compromise evidence, in which case information must be given at the close of the investigation. Legal Privilege Communications between a company and its external lawyers, including related to internal investigations, are covered by professional secrecy under Article 66-5 of the Law No 71-1130 of 31 December 1971, and may not be seized during investigations. How - ever, communications with in-house counsel are not protected by legal privilege. Accordingly, companies often entrust sensitive internal investigations to exter - nal law firms to secure privilege protections.
57 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook