The Paris Court of Appeal recently handed down landmark rulings concerning the actions brought by several NGOs against energy giants TotalEnergies and EDF. Greenpeace had already strongly criticized TotalEnergies’ role in the French nuclear sector. These actions are based on the duty of care, a legal requirement for multinationals to publish plans detailing the human and environmental risks of their activities. The court ruled that the associations’ claims were admissible, thus overturning the first-instance judgments.
These Court of Appeal rulings now allow cases to be examined on their merits, which could lead to significant changes in the way these companies manage their due diligence obligations. According to the court’s press release, the court declared certain plaintiffs admissible to act, thus enabling the debate on the merits of the measures requested before the Paris judicial court.
Background and legal implications
The 2017 French law on the duty of vigilance requires companies employing more than 5,000 employees in France and/or more than 10,000 worldwide to publish a vigilance plan. This plan must cover the human and environmental risks of their activities, including those of their foreign subsidiaries, subcontractors and suppliers. This legislation has positioned France as a leader in corporate social responsibility.
In one of the most high-profile cases, a coalition of NGOs and local authorities served formal notice on TotalEnergies, accusing it of failing to align its climate strategy with the Paris Agreement. Although rejected by the court of first instance for failing to respect the requirement of a prior dialogue phase, the NGOs had their claim upheld on appeal, opening up the possibility of a substantial review of TotalEnergies’ practices.
Specific decisions and future prospects
The Court of Appeal also ruled that the claims against EDF concerning a wind farm project in Mexico were admissible. Similarly, the management of water in the Chilean city of Osorno by a former Suez subsidiary, now part of Veolia, was examined. However, in the latter case, the court upheld the inadmissibility of the action, highlighting the strict criteria for identifying breaches required by law.
These judgments underline the importance of companies providing detailed due diligence plans that comply with legal requirements. They also highlight the increased vigilance of NGOs and local authorities, ready to take legal action to ensure that multinationals comply with environmental and social standards.
The implications of these decisions are far-reaching. They could reinforce the rigor with which multinationals develop and implement their vigilance plans. In addition, they provide a roadmap for NGOs and other stakeholders to hold companies accountable for their global impacts.
The forthcoming debates before the Paris judicial court promise to shed further light on the practical application of the Duty of Vigilance law, and could lead to influential legal precedents. This situation highlights the complex dynamic between companies’ legal obligations and growing expectations in terms of social and environmental responsibility.
In sum, these recent developments point to an intensification of efforts to enforce vigilance standards, and could mark a significant turning point in the way multinationals manage their global responsibilities.
