Analysis
14 July 2018

Upholding of France trade secret

Bastille Day Newsletter 2018 - What’s Hot

 

The French Blocking Statute (law n°80-538 of July 16,1980, the amended version of the law first passed in 1968) aims at restricting cross-border discovery of information by prohibiting any French party from disclosing commercial information (which may be strategic) whether originating from France or elsewhere in foreign litigation absent of a French court order. This law was only applied once in France in the Executive Life case in 2007 where a lawyer who had sought information for the purpose of American proceedings was fined 10 000 euros pursuant to Article 1 bis of the French Blocking Statute. The US Supreme Court held in the Aerospatiale decision in 1987 that the Blocking Statute does not prevent US courts to require the disclosure of documents during discovery. In addition to this, France signed bilateral agreements such as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (“MLAT”) between France and the United States setting out the rules governing the exchange of information relevant to an investigation which waive the non-disclosure requirements of the French Blocking Statute.

The last decade has witnessed the increase of extraterritorial proceedings especially US proceedings against European companies. Indeed, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applies the rules of discovery to companies located outside the US. Such proceedings enable American authorities to access strategic information of European companies. The European Union thus decided to implement a protection for its strategic information through the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. The European Directive is intended to have a deterrent effect against the unlawful acquisition use or disclosure of trade secrets without undermining fundamental rights and freedom of speech.

France just implemented the European Directive. Indeed, the final Bill, examined by a joint equity committee (commission mixte paritaire) in a fast track procedure (procédure accélérée) was approved by the Senate on June 21, 2018. On June 27, 2018 the opposition referred the case to the Constitutional Court.

The French legislation implementing the European Directive forbids unlawful acquisition use or disclosure of information meeting the following three requirements : “1) is secret in the sense that it is not, as  a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question 2) it has commercial value because it is secret 3) it has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret”. The French legislation defines a new legal framework to determine whether disclosing the trade secrets is legal or not. It is worth mentioning that section 4 of the new French legislation enumerates the exception to the protection of trade secrets namely when the acquisition, use or disclosure of information is carried out “for exercising the right to freedom of expression and information as set out in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union».

The new French legislation has suffered several criticisms and some NGOs considered that it could seriously jeopardize the public’s right to information by limiting the disclosure of information (as in the LuxLeaks or the Panama Papers case). It should however be highlighted that the joint equity committee (commission mixte paritaire) abandoned the criminal offence relating to the misappropriation of a protected business information whereas the civil fine for strategic lawsuit against public participation was restored.

The efficiency of the protective mechanism implemented by the French legislation could however be challenged in a global context. Indeed, it should be underlined that pursuant to section 4 of the law, trade secret is not protected when the obtaining, use or disclosure of the secret is required or authorized by European Union law, international enforceable treaties and agreements or in the exercise of investigative, sanctioning, authorizing powers of judicial or administrative authorities. This provision can be interpreted as if a request presented by a foreign authority within the scope of a cooperation agreement would be authorized by national law, meaning that trade secrets would not be protected in such cases. The new legislation could therefore be construed as allowing discovery injunctions by foreign courts. Finally, it must also be outlined that the new legislation does not take into account the particularities of common law and can therefore jeopardize its enforcement and efficiency.

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
11 July 2025
Press review – Week of 7 July 2025
This week's press review covers the ongoing trial of a fictitious employment case at Le Canard enchaîné, the sanctioning of...
Publication
8 July 2025
Observatory of Judicial Agreements of Public Interest
Over the past 12 months, 16 CJIPs have been concluded, reflecting a rise in fines, particularly in environmental and tax-related...
Publication
8 July 2025
The French Financial Markets Authority activity
In 2024, the AMF reduced the number of investigations and inspections, while strengthening its cooperation with judicial authorities. It issued...
Publication
8 July 2025
The French data protection authority activity
In 2024, the CNIL intensified inspections and cooperation, especially on cookies, cybersecurity, and AI. It handled nearly 18,000 complaints and...
Publication
8 July 2025
The French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority activity
In 2024, the ACPR strengthened its oversight, particularly in anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing, through targeted inspections and audits of...
Publication
8 July 2025
2024, an active year for French regulators
French regulators have been highly active in 2024, with more investigations, hefty fines, and stronger cooperation both nationally and internationally.
Publication
8 July 2025
Trends in environmental criminal law & duty of vigilance and their consequences in France
Environmental law and duty of vigilance, both seen as forward-looking topics expected to generate significant litigation, are currently following two...
Publication
8 July 2025
Evolution of white collar crime: Between regulatory strengthening and judicial trend-setting
The fight for integrity is intensifying in France, with more high-profile trials, strengthened anti-money laundering regulations, and evolving case law,...
Publication
8 July 2025
The proposed reform of French arbitration law
The working group on arbitration reform submitted its report to the Minister of Justice pn 20 March 2025. The report...
Publication
8 July 2025
A year of criminal justice: focus on 6 major criminal trials
A look at six criminal trials that have shaped the French judicial landscape over the past twelve months, due to...
Publication
8 July 2025
AFA news on matters of fighting against corruption & breaches of integrity
Eight years after the Sapin II Law came into force, the French Anti-Corruption Agency continues its efforts to combat corruption...