France: French Blocking Statute: A Renewed Interest?

Recent laws—such as the 2016 Sapin 2 Law and the new EU General Data Protection Regulation—provide for rules that are intended to ensure compliance with the French Blocking Statute, which prohibits any French party from requesting or disclosing commercial information, absent a French court order. Many individuals believe that these provisions are likely to lead to increased enforcement of the Blocking Statute.

French Parliament Member Raphaël Gauavin, in a recent unreleased Report to the French Prime Minister, insisted on the strict enforcement of the French Blocking Statute, with increased penalties. If they have not already done so, companies should be considering what risks these new legal provisions create when they are ordered to produce documents in proceedings outside of France.

Originally enacted in 1968 in response to U.S. antitrust investigations into French shipping companies, the French Blocking Statute was tailored to protect French citizens and corporations from the alleged excesses of U.S. discovery processes.

The Statute prohibits any French party from requesting or disclosing commercial information, whether originating from France or elsewhere in litigation outside of France, absent a French court order.1

The reach of the statute has been interpreted broadly, and the information requested or disclosed does not have to involve the sovereignty, security, or essential economic interests of France to be covered by the statute. Moreover, the Statute applies to any evidence located in France, whether in the hands of a natural or legal person, French or foreign.

Any infringement of the Blocking Statute constitutes a criminal offense, the potential sanctions being imprisonment of up to six months and/or a fine of up to €18,000 for an individual and €90,000 for a company.

For a more complete description of the Statute, see our Jones Day Commentary " French Blocking Statute: A Death Foretold" (February 2014).


The Statute often requires French companies that are involved in litigation outside of France to choose between either complying with the foreign discovery process and possibly exposing themselves to prosecution in France or complying with the provisions of the Blocking Statute and jeopardizing their position in litigation pending in a foreign jurisdiction.

U.S. courts have ruled in several landmark decisions that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prevail over the French Blocking Statute and, hence, over the Hague Convention.2 This creates a dilemma in U.S. criminal and regulatory proceedings when U.S. authorities proceed by serving subpoenas on French companies with a U.S. presence for documents located in France, rather than proceeding under the U.S.–French Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty to obtain those documents. In such proceedings, U.S. authorities may view a company's compliance with the French Blocking Statute as noncooperative, and U.S. courts may view such behavior as contemptuous.

Therefore, even though the Blocking Statute may in fact be depriving companies of their right to defend themselves efficiently before foreign courts, the Statute's initial goal was to protect French economic interests.


French authorities have prosecuted offenders under these provisions from time to time.

On December 12, 2007, the French Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision, known as the Christopher X / MAAF case.3 The court held that a French-qualified lawyer had committed a criminal offense by seeking to obtain information—without complying with the requirements of the Hague Convention— from a French company to serve as evidence in court proceedings pending in the United States.

However, on January 30, 2008, the French Supreme Court4 reversed its position, upholding dismissal of a criminal complaint based on alleged breach of the Blocking Statute. The Court ruled that the information disclosed in the course of a U.S. court proceeding was related to private matters. It stated that despite the confidentiality of the information, the data did not fall within the scope of the Statute, because this was not sensitive economic information.

More recently, the Blocking Statute has been invoked before French civil courts to challenge the transmission of documents. In a notable decision, the Court of Appeal of Nancy5 refused, pursuant to the Statute, to order the disclosure of documents intended to be produced in a pre-trial discovery proceeding in the United States.6


Litigants and third parties have invoked the French Blocking Statute in U.S. court proceedings with little success. In the seminal case Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court,7 plaintiffs sued two French companies in U.S. federal court. The defendants opposed discovery of information located in France, arguing that compliance would violate the French Blocking Statute. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to defer to French law, writing that "[blocking] statutes do not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even though the act of production may violate that statute."8 But the Court did not wholly disregard French interests, stating that "American courts should ... take care to demonstrate due respect for any special problem confronted by [a] foreign litigant on account of its nationality or the location of its operations, and for any sovereign interest expressed by a foreign state."9

Thus, before ordering discovery or enforcing a subpoena that would violate a foreign blocking statute, U.S. courts must engage in a comity analysis that considers the particular facts of a case and the sovereign interests at issue.10 Courts have considered different factors when conducting this comity analysis, including:

  • The importance to the investigation or litigation of the documents or other information requested;
  • The degree of specificity of the request;
  • Whether the information originated in the United States;
  • The availability of alternative means of securing the information;
  • The extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important interests of the United States, or compliance with the request would undermine important interests of the state where the information is located;
  • Hardship of the party facing conflicting legal obligations; and
  • Whether that party has demonstrated good faith in addressing its discovery obligations.11

The existence of a blocking statute is "relevant to the court's particularized comity analysis only to the extent that its terms and its enforcement identify the nature of the sovereign interests in nondisclosure of specific kinds of material."12

The French Blocking Statute has not carried much weight in U.S. courts' comity analysis. Courts regard the Statute as a law that was purposefully drafted "riddled with loopholes that make it substantially unenforceable."13 A U.S. court has observed that "[i] n practice ... it appears that when a foreign court orders production of French documents even though the producing party has raised the 'excuse' of the French blocking statute, the French authorities do not, in fact, prosecute or otherwise punish the producing party."14 As a result, U.S. courts have repeatedly held that U.S. interests in obtaining information and documents located in France outweigh any French interest embodied by the current Blocking Statute.15 That said, even when a U.S. court compels discovery notwithstanding the Blocking Statute, U.S. courts have been receptive to arguments that certain types of documents should be produced in pseudonymized or redacted form.16


The 2016 Sapin 2 Law,17 which addresses transparency, anticorruption, and economic modernization in France, established a French Anti-Corruption Agency ("Agency") to control the implementation of compliance programs within companies, including compliance with the provisions of the Blocking Statute.

Article 3.5 of the Sapin 2 law provides that the new Anti- Corruption Agency:

[S]hall ensure, at the request of the Prime Minister, the compliance with [the Blocking Statute] in the context of the implementation of decisions taken by foreign authorities and which impose on companies whose registered office are located on French territory an obligation to undertake a procedure in order to bring into conformity its internal procedures for preventing and detecting corruption.

The Agency's mission will therefore include ensuring compliance with the Blocking Statute, notably in the context of the execution of deferred prosecution agreements signed by French companies. Indeed, in the light of the above, the Agency will intervene only at the stage of implementation of decisions of foreign authorities and not at the prior stage of investigation or discovery procedures.

Also, decree No. 2016-66 of January 29, 2016, established a "Strategic Information and Economic Security Service" (Service de l'information stratégique et de la sécurité économique), whose mission is to "ensure the application of the provisions of the above-mentioned law of July 26, 1968 by the persons subject to it, with the exception of those powers conferred by the law in this field to another authority (...)."

No doubt, these provisions are likely to strengthen the enforcement of the Blocking Statute and perhaps force U.S. courts to revisit their rationale for refusing to apply the French Blocking Statute.

Finally, by a law dated July 30, 2018,18 France implemented the EU Directive on Trade Secrets.19 While this law has no direct impact on the Blocking Statute, its provisions are intended to sanction the unlawful use and disclosure of trade secrets, including in litigation proceedings in France. This is an additional provision that lawyers will be able to use to oppose the transmission of sensitive documents.


Recent French laws provide for rules that are intended to ensure compliance with the French Blocking Statute. The coming Gauvain Report will very likely recommend the strict application of the French Blocking Statute and increase the current penalties to prevent any breach of the Statute. Increased enforcement of the French Blocking Statute may cause U.S. courts to give increased weight to the Statute when conducting comity analysis.


1. Article 1 bis of the Statute provides: "Subject to Treaties or International Agreements and to currently applicable laws and regulations, it is prohibited for any person to request, seek or disclose, in writing, orally, or in any other form, documents or information of an economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical nature directed toward establishing evidence in view of foreign judicial or administrative proceedings or in relation thereto."

2. See our Jones Day Commentary, " French Blocking Statute: A Death Foretold," Feb. 2014.

3. French Supreme Court, Criminal Section, December 12, 2007, n° 07-83.228.

4. French Supreme Court, Criminal Section, January 30, 2008, n° 06-84.098.

5. Court of Appeal of Nancy, June 4, 2014, n° 14/01547.

6. In this case, a U.S. company, which sold its French subsidiary to a Scandinavian company based in France, was sued by a former customer before U.S. courts. The U.S. company requested, before a French judge, that its former French subsidiary provide it with a significant number of documents (accounts, trade secrets, etc.). After the trial judge ordered the production of the requested documents, the Court of Appeal quashed this decision and refused, on the basis of the Statute, to order the disclosure of the documents.

7. 482 U.S. 522 (1987).

8. Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544 n.29 (citing Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958).

9. Id. at 546.

10. Id. at 544.

11. The first five factors are taken from Section 442 of the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States.

12. Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544 n.29 (emphasis added).

13. Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 73 F. Supp. 3d 397, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), reconsideration granted on other grounds, 132 F. Supp. 3d 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

14. Id. See also Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum, 105 F.R.D. 16, 30 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (court declined to apply the French Blocking Statute, explaining that: "the legislative history of the statute gives strong indications that it was never expected to nor intended to be enforced against French subjects but was intended rather to provide them with tactical weapons and bargaining chips in foreign courts"); Bodner v. Paribas, 202 F.R.D. 370, 375 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) ("the French Blocking Statute does not subject defendants to a realistic risk of prosecution").

15. See, e.g., Bodner, 202 F.R.D. at 375 (declining to defer to blocking statute); Adidas Ltd. v. SS Seatrain Bennington, 1984 WL 423 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (court declined to apply the French Blocking Statute in light of interests it was intended to serve); Valois of America v. Risdon Corp. 183 F.R.D. 344 (D. Conn. 1997) (declining to apply French Blocking Statute); but see In re Activision Blizzard, Inc., 86 A.3d 531 (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2014) (ordering discovery to proceed under both the Delaware procedural rules and the letters of request procedure provided by The Hague Evidence Convention).

16. See, e.g., In re Commodity Exchange, Inc. Gold Futures and Options Trading Litig., 14-MD-2548 at ** 4-5, 16 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019).

17. Law No. 2016-1691 of Dec. 9, 2016.

18. Law n° 2018-670.

19. Directive 2016/943.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions