FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Diane Bandon-Tourret and Agathe Clarac, LexCase
In group actions, the court with territorial juris - diction is that of the place where the defend - ant lives. The Paris court has jurisdiction if the defendant lives abroad or has no known domi- cile or residence. 2.5 Pre-Action Procedures and Requirements for Product Liability Claims Pre-action procedures and requirements for product liability claims are not applicable in France. 2.6 Rules for Preservation of Evidence in Product Liability Claims Under French law, it is incumbent upon each party to prove, in accordance with the law, the facts necessary for the success of its claim and the judge has the power to order, ex officio, all legally admissible measures of inquiry (Articles 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Except where the law provides otherwise, evi - dence may be adduced by any means (Article 1358 of the Civil Code). Furthermore, in a judgment handed down on 22 December 2023 (No 20-20.648), the plenary ses - sion of the Cour de Cassation ruled on the con - ditions for admissibility of evidence obtained or produced in an unlawful or unfair manner under certain strict conditions. 2.7 Rules for Disclosure of Documents in Product Liability Cases If there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, prior to any legal proceedings, proof of facts on which the resolution of a dispute may depend, legally admissible investigative measures may be ordered upon request of any interested party, on application or in summary proceedings (Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The latter requires for the applicant
to demonstrate the existence of a legitimate reason. The assessment of what constitutes a legitimate reason within the meaning of this text falls within the discretionary power of the court hearing the case. The futility of the measure requested is in itself an obstacle to the existence of a legitimate reason. Indeed, case law rules out the existence of a legitimate reason when the request is not based on any precise, objective and verifiable fact, and the applicant does not therefore demonstrate the existence of a plausi - ble, credible dispute, albeit possible and future, the content and basis of which would be identi - fied, at least approximately (Court of Cassation, Civil Division 2, 10 December 2020, 19-22.619, Published in the Bulletin). Civil courts have held that business secrecy does not in itself constitute an obstacle to the application of the provisions of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it is up to the interim relief judge to check whether the measure ordered is necessary for the applicant to exercise his/her right to evidence and propor - tionate to the conflicting interests involved (Cass 2nd civ, 25 March 2021, No 20-14.309). Where, in the course of civil or commercial pro - ceedings relating to an investigative measure requested prior to any trial on the merits or in the course of proceedings on the merits, reference is made to or the communication or production of a document is requested which is alleged by a party or a third party or which has been deemed to be of such a nature as to infringe a business secret, the judge may, of his/her own motion or upon request of a party or a third party, if the protection of this secrecy cannot be ensured otherwise and without prejudice to the exercise of the rights of the defence:
79
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook