French Duty of Vigilance Law: the Paris Court of Appeal upholds the state-owned postal company’s conviction for breaching its duty of vigilance

Key takeaways 

• On 17 June 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal issued its first decision on the merits based on the French Duty of Vigilance Law (FDVL). The Court upheld the judgment ordering the French state-owned postal company (the “Company”) to revise its vigilance plan.
• The decision provides valuable guidance on the methodology to be applied under the FDVL when establishing a vigilance plan. It signals a shift towards stricter expectations for precision, prioritisation based on the seriousness of the risks identified in the risk mapping, and stakeholder engagement.
• While several cases are still pending before French courts, companies should proactively review their vigilance plans to reduce litigation risks and align with these clarified standards.

Context

On 17 June 2025, the new chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, dedicated to emerging litigation and disputes related to the duty of vigilance, issued its first decision on the merits relating to the French Duty of Vigilance Law.

The French Duty of Vigilance Law requires large corporations to establish and implement a “vigilance plan” designed to identify and prevent serious infringements of human rights and fundamental freedoms, individuals’ health and safety, and environmental harm associated with their activities, as well as those of their subcontractors and suppliers throughout the value chain.

The first instance decision

On 22 December 2021, a trade union sued the Company under the FDVL, seeking an order to substantially revise and supplement its vigilance plan. It was alleged that the plan lacked the required precision to comply with the FDVL and the Paris Commercial Court was asked to order the implementation of specific and concrete measures to ensure compliance with the law. 

In a landmark decision of 5 December 2023, the Court upheld the claim and ordered the Company to supplement its vigilance plan. However, the Court refused to impose specific preventive measures against human rights violations, holding that it could not step into the shoes of the company and its stakeholders. For more information about this decision, read our previous blog post.

The Court of Appeal’s findings

The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision and ordered the Company to supplement its vigilance plan. This judgment provides important guidance to businesses on the requirements of the FDVL.

Risk mapping failing to distinguish risks according to their seriousness

The Court emphasised that the FDVL places risk mapping at the forefront of the measures to be included in a company’s vigilance plan, since it forms the basis for determining the actions to be taken to mitigate risks, prevent serious harm, and implement monitoring measures.

The Paris Court of Appeal confirmed that the Company’s risk mapping was too general and therefore failed to comply with the requirements of the FDVL.

While the plan was organised around the three areas covered by the duty of vigilance (human rights, health and safety, environment), the Court found that it failed to clearly distinguish risks according to their seriousness. The Court held that “although the law does not require the plan to communicate on all risks, it must, however, […] highlight the risks that present the highest level of severity, by means of a map that identifies, analyses and prioritises them, distinctly and independently from any measures implemented”.

The Court provided further methodological guidance, specifying that (i) the risks to be identified and assessed are both the actual and potential risks associated with the activities of the companies concerned; and (ii) companies must identify the areas where negative impacts are most likely and most severe. This mapping may be presented in summary form, provided it remains precise.

Interestingly, although the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or CS3D) has yet to be transposed into French law, the Court confirmed that its approach was consistent with the CSDDD’s requirements.

Evaluation procedures not sufficiently based on seriousness of the risks

The Company had put in place a three-step evaluation procedure, consisting of (i) self-assessment, by way of a questionnaire, by each subcontractor and supplier, (ii) a documentary audit by an independent entity, and (iii) on-site audit.

However, in the absence of identification, analysis and prioritisation of the most serious risks in risk mapping, the Court of Appeal held that the assessment procedure was also insufficient.

Inadequate consultation with trade unions on the alert mechanism

The Court underlined that the FDVL requires prior and effective consultation with the representative trade union organisations. This consultation requires transmission of information, an exchange of views, and proposals on the drafting of the content and implementation of the alert mechanism.

In this case, the Court found that the Company failed to show that a dialogue with trade unions had taken place prior to the development of the alert mechanism.

Incomplete monitoring system

The Court held that the Company’s monitoring system should provide explanations for the vigilance strategy and its contents should reflect what is expected of the vigilance plan and be closely linked to the preceding measures in the plan.

The Court determined that the monitoring indicators developed by the Company lacked alignment with the objectives of preventing serious harm. Specifically, there was no clear connection established between the mapped risks, the implementation of risk mitigation or harm prevention measures, and the corresponding performance indicators.

Further reading

French Duty of Vigilance Law: first decision on the merits rendered by a French Court 

France: two claims based on the duty of vigilance declared admissible