FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Xavier Pernot, Pierre Linais and Ony Rajaona, Jeantet
its rulings, the Paris Court of Appeal remitted the cases back to the merits, reversing the rulings in the EDF and Total Energie, cases in part, while confirming the ruling in the Suez case. These three cases are briefly summarised below. EDF A case was initiated against EDF concerning the construction of a wind farm on an indigenous community’s land in Mexico by representa- tives of this community, an association and the European Centre for Human and Constitutional Rights. The plaintiffs required the court to order EDF to take the necessary measures to modify its vigilance plan in order to comply with the community’s rights and to repair the damage that had been caused. In a decision rendered in November 2021, the Paris Judicial Court rejected the claims on a procedural ground, mentioning that the formal notice sent and the writ of summons did not relate to the same vigilance plan, even though the law does not explicitly require such condi- tion. The plaintiffs appealed against such deci- sion. Total Energie A complaint was filed in 2020 requesting the court to order Total to take the necessary meas- ures to comply with the objective of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit global warming, according to the plaintiffs. In a decision rendered in July 2023, the Paris Judicial Court rejected the claims on a proce- dural ground. In particular, the court noted that the claims made in the writ of summons were not identical to those in the formal notice. The court further noted that the claims formulated in the formal notice must be the same as those men-
tioned in the writ of summons, since each claim should be discussed between the parties before the proceedings are brought before the court. Vigie, (formerly Suez) In 2021, NGOs took Suez (subsequently re- named Vigie) to court after a series of malfunc- tions were attributed to one of its affiliates in Chile. The alleged malfunctions would have resulted in the deprivation of water for residents in the city of Osorno and a health emergency due to the contamination of potable water. In the ruling, the claims were rejected since the plaintiffs had not summoned Suez on the basis of the same vigilance plan as the one mentioned in the formal notice. In this case, the judge added that the claims brought by the plaintiffs against Suez were inadmissible since the disputed vigi- lance plan did not mention which specific com- pany within the Suez Group’s corporate struc- ture was responsible for such plan. Key takeaways of the 2024 Court of Appeal rulings The Paris Judicial Court ruled that these cas- es were inadmissible (EDF case Paris Court of Appeal, 18 June 2024, No 21/22319; Suez case Paris Court of Appeal, 18 June 2024, No 23/10583; Total case Paris Court of Appeal, 18 June 2024, No 23/14348). The Court of Appeal gives precious insight into the implementation of the duty of vigilance regarding procedural aspects. No requirement for prior conciliation The Paris Judicial Court ensured that disputes remain within strict procedural boundaries in order to favour dialogue between companies and stakeholders. The Paris Court of Appeal reconsidered the argument put forward by the
462 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook