Analysis
14 July 2020

French Supreme court ruled that the non-compliance with anticorruption provisions could enable co-contractor to terminate established business relations

Bastille Day Newsletter 2020 - Enforcement & Court Decisions

 

On November 20, 2019, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) ruled that failing to comply with anticorruption provisions included in a contract is a valid ground for terminating a long-established business relationship. The dismissed contractor in breach of compliance requirements is not entitled to claim damages based on the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

This is the first decision rendered on the topic. This verdict emphasized that the French Supreme Court considered that “compliance law” have become unavoidable.

 

I. The French Supreme Court ruled that a breach of anticorruption compliance and a failure to declare its interests is sufficient to characterize a misconduct enabling to terminate a contractual relationship

A French company specialized in the marketing of medical devices (“EIC”) signed a business agency contract in 2007 with the French subsidiary of the U.S company Biomet, Zimmer Biomet France (“Biomet”).

Under the terms of this contract, EIC “undertook to carry out its activities in compliance with the applicable rules, and in particular acknowledged that it had been informed of the provisions of the former Article L. 4113-6 of the Public Health Code and acknowledged that he had to comply with them”. The company also undertook to subscribe to the Biomet Group’s global anti-corruption policy providing that “all Biomet collaborators will be required to sign a certification of their adherence to the Policy on a regular basis, as well as to satisfactorily participate in training on applicable anti-corruption legislation”[1].

After EIC refusal to renew his adherence and certification to Biomet anti-corruption policy and the failure to declare its links of interests, Biomet terminated the contract without prior notice due to a serious breach of EIC’s contractual compliance obligations. EIC then sued Biomet in front of the French courts for abrupt termination of an established commercial relationship pursuant to article L 442-6 I 5° of the French Commercial Code [2].

For the first time, the French Supreme Court ruled that a breach of anticorruption compliance rules is a valid ground for to terminating a commercial contract for misconduct.

More specifically, the French Supreme Court endorsed the judges of appeal considering that “taking into account the rules set out in the compliance program and the agreement concluded, the failure of [EIC] to comply with its contractual obligations, in that it was likely to result in Biomet’s own liability, was sufficiently serious to justify the termination of the commercial relationship without notice” [3].

 

II. French Supreme Court stance for compliance law

The decision emphasized that the French Supreme Court considered that a company may engage its liability for its business partners failure to comply with anticorruption compliance requirements.

In the case at hand, it is relevant to note that the defendant company signed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) with the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2012 for corruption of public officials. Under this DPA, Biomet agreed to pay a 17 million dollars fine and to strengthen its anticorruption compliance program under a monitorship. The enhancement of the anticorruption compliance program included relationships with third parties, namely business partners. In this context, the non-compliance of its contractor with its anticorruption requirements exposed Biomet to a sanction and a criminal risk.

In addition, IEC failure to declare its interests took place in the context of increased transparency requirements with French anti-gift rules and public health scandals.

In line with the Sapin II law requirements [4] and the French Anti-corruption Agency (“AFA”) guidelines [5] in terms of control over third parties before entering into/during a business relationship, this ruling sends thus a strong message to French businesses : they must maintain a high level of requirements in terms of internal control and third-party controls with respect to the compliance policies. Moreover, and in accordance with the recent publishing of the political procedure circular on the fight against international corruption [6] by French Minister of Justice Nicole Belloubet, the companies must be involved in the fight against corruption and its implementing mechanisms [7].

Related content

Publication
8 July 2025
Bastille Day Newsletter 2025
As they do every year for 14 July, Navacelle's lawyers offer you a selection of noticeable events which occurred in...
Analysis
20 May 2025
CJIP Paprec: criminal penalties applicable to violations of the rules governing public procurement
On 10 February 2025, Paprec signed a “Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public” – CJIP (equivalent to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement) to...
Publication
13 September 2024
Cross-country insights: Addressing Corruption Allegations in Arbitration Disputes
This guide aims at providing a comprehensive understanding of how different countries handle allegations of corruption in the course of...
Press review
26 September 2025
Press Review – Week of 22 September 2025
This week’s press review covers the settlement reached by UBS ending a long-standing tax dispute in France, the filing of...
Analysis
22 September 2025
CJIP Surys: a fine, a compliance penalty and compensation for the victim
On 8 July 2025, SAS SURYS entered into a Judicial Public Interest Agreement (CJIP) in respect of acts of bribery...
Press review
19 September 2025
Press Review – Week of 15 September 2025
This week’s press review covers the dismantling of the darknet platform “DFAS” which led to the arrest of two suspects...
Press review
12 September 2025
Press Review – Week of 8 September 2025
This week’s press review covers the decision by the French Court of Cassation requesting the Paris Court of Appeal to...
Press review
5 September 2025
Press Review – Week of 1 September 2025
This week’s press review covers the issuance by the French judiciary of seven arrest warrants targeting Bashar Al-Assad and several...
Press review
29 August 2025
Press Review – Week of 25 August 2025
This week’s press review covers the announcement of the arrest of over 1,200 cybercriminals during Interpol’s Serengeti 2.0 operation in...
Event
28 August 2025
Professional training course on internal investigations – Paris Bar School (3rd edition)
When and how to conduct an internal investigation? In what context? What is your role as a lawyer? What about...
Press review
22 August 2025
Press Review – Week of 18 August 2025
This week’s press review covers the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) corruption investigation against the South African telecoms company MTN,...
Press review
14 August 2025
Press Review – Week of 11 August 2025
This week’s press review covers a priority preliminary ruling on constitutionality (QPC) issued on August 8 concerning a decision by...
News
11 August 2025
The Global Arbitration Review reports on Navacelle’s arbitration development
Navacelle's development in arbitration takes a new step forward.
Press review
8 August 2025
Press Review – Week of 4 August 2025
This week’s press review covers the ongoing judicial investigation concerning allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest against former European...
Press review
press review
1 August 2025
Press Review – Week of 28 July 2025
This week’s press review covers the legal battle between the Bolloré group and France’s financial markets authority over Vivendi, the...