FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Eva Kopelman, Ségolène Cox and Alexis Alié-Sandevoir, Axipiter
6. Conclusion and Outcome of an HR Internal Investigation 6.1 Deciding to End an HR Internal Investigation Under French law, neither statute nor case law sets a specific point at which an internal HR investigation must be concluded. In practice, an investigation may be closed once all relevant information has been collected (interviews, documents, data) and the investigator has sufficient evidence to: • verify the allegations made by the reporter; • identify any potential violations of legal rules con - cerning harassment or discrimination; and • formulate a reasoned conclusion. An investigation may also be closed prematurely in certain circumstances, including when: • no credible evidence can be obtained despite rea - sonable efforts; • the complainant withdraws their complaint and no compelling reason exists to continue; • the co-operation of the parties is insufficient to establish the facts; • an external procedure (judicial or police) renders further investigation unnecessary; or • the individuals involved leave the company. 6.2 Procedure for Ending an HR Internal Investigation Once the decision to conclude/abandon an HR inter - nal investigation has been made, it is recommended that both the reporter and the respondent be informed of the closure. The conclusions of the investigation should subsequently be communicated to them. Where employee representatives exist within the com - pany, the full report or a summary may also be pre - sented to the members of the CSE during an extraor - dinary meeting convened for this purpose. French case law confirms that an employer is not required to disclose the full investigation report to the disciplinary committee. It is sufficient to provide infor -
• guides or methodologies for conducting internal investigations. Unlike the statutory internal regulations ( règlement intérieur ), which must be formally filed with the labour inspectorate and the employment tribunal, charters or guides relating to internal investigation procedures do not have normative force. However, failure to comply with established internal investigation procedures may undermine the credibil - ity of the investigation. In litigation, courts will assess whether the alleged procedural breach materially affects the evidentiary value of the investigation. It should be noted that internal investigations and their conclusions do not bind the judge, who will indepen - dently determine the probative value of the findings (Cass. Soc., 29 June 2022, No 21-11.437). 5.3 Burden and Degree of Proof Under French labour law, the burden of proof in inter - nal investigations and related disputes depends on the type of allegation. Generally, the employee must provide facts that give rise to a presumption of wrong - doing. Once such facts are presented, it is for the employer or alleged wrongdoer to demonstrate that the conduct did not constitute misconduct and that any related decisions were justified by objective, non-discriminatory or non-harassing reasons (Article L1154-1, French Labour Code). The degree of proof required is therefore not “beyond reasonable doubt”, as in criminal cases, but rather a preponderance of evidence or sufficient factual basis to raise a presumption. This standard applies both in litigation and at the stage of internal investigations, where the aim is to collect elements that reasonably suggest the alleged misconduct occurred, rather than irrefutable proof (Decision No 2024-105, 11 July 2024). Illustrative examples of evidence that may support a presumption include witness statements, medical certificates, and emails or text messages. In contrast, mere rumours or hearsay alone are insufficient (Cass. Soc., 9 October 2013, No 12-22.288).
159 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook