News, 24 June 2026

⚖️ Unfair Competition : Causation cannot be presumed Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, June 24, 2026, Case No. 25-12.787 In a ruling dated 24 June 2026, the Commercial Chamber of the French Court of Cassation reaffirmed that, in matters of unfair competition, a causal link between the wrongful conduct and the alleged diversion of customers must be established in order to obtain compensation for the resulting loss. In June 2017, two employees of a market research institute resigned from their positions as Associate Director and Research Director to join a competing market research firm. The two employees were alleged to have solicited clients on behalf of their future employer while they were still employed by their former company. The original institute claimed that the competitor had unlawfully poached its employees and diverted its customers, arguing that these acts constituted unfair competition. The French Court of Cassation was therefore asked to determine whether the Court of Appeal could award damages for the alleged loss of customers solely on the basis of conduct deemed unfair, without establishing that such conduct had in fact resulted in the diversion of those customers. 📌 The Commercial Chamber did more than simply reiterate the requirement to establish causation. It overturned the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, finding that it had merely assumed that the unfair conduct was necessarily the cause of all the alleged customer losses. The Court thus emphasized that, in unfair competition cases, unfair conduct can justify an award of damages only if it is proven to have caused the diversion of customers for which compensation is sought. Such proof must be provided in respect of each customer concerned. Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, June 24, 2026, Case No. 25-12.787

News, June 18, 2026

⚖️ Lapse of a notice of appeal: the French Supreme Court condemns excessive formalism Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, June 18, 2026, Case No. 23-18.170 In a judgment delivered on 18 June 2026, sitting as a Section Formation and published in the Official Bulletin, the Second Civil Chamber of the French Supreme Court (“Cour de cassation”) clarified the drafting requirements applicable to the operative part (“dispositif”) of appellate submissions. 📌 In the present case, the appellant’s submissions, filed within the time limit prescribed by Article 908 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, did not expressly seek the reversal (“infirmation”) or setting aside (“annulation”) of the first-instance judgment. They nonetheless requested that the judgment be “rendered null and void” (“mettre à néant”) and invited the Court of Appeal to reconsider the challenged heads of the judgment. The Court of Appeal held that these submissions failed to contain an express application for the reversal or annulment of the judgment and, on that basis, declared the notice of appeal to have lapsed (“caducité de la déclaration d’appel”). The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the absence of the terms “reversal” or “annulment” from the operative part of the submissions necessarily results in the lapse of the notice of appeal, despite it being clear from both the submissions and the notice of appeal that the appellant seaks reversal of the judgment. The Supreme Court answered this question in the negative. It held that requiring the exclusive use of the terms “reversal” or “annulment”, on pain of the notice of appeal being declared lapsed or the judgment being affirmed, constitutes excessive formalism. 🔎 In reaching this conclusion, the Court first recalled the provisions of Article 954 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. That provision requires that the parties’ claims be set out expressly in the operative part of their submissions. The Court of Appeal is therefore bound to rule only on those claims. The Court further held that, “even in the absence of the terms ‘reversal’ or ‘annulment’, if the wording of the operative part of the submissions, read in conjunction with the notice of appeal where necessary, shows that the appellant seeks reversal or annulment of the judgment, the Court of Appeal must find that such a claim is properly before it.” In the present case, the operative part of the submissions requested that the judgment be “rendered null and void” and invited the Court of Appeal to rule afresh on specifically identified claims. Additionally, the notice of appeal limited the challenge to certain operative provisions of the first-instance judgment. The Supreme Court held that these elements necessarily established that the appellant sought reversal of those provisions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Court of Appeal had applied excessive formalism and thereby infringed the relevant provisions by failing to find that the claim for reversal had been properly brought before it.” 📚 This ruling is part of the evolving case law of the Second Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which takes into account the requirements established by the European Court of Human Rights regarding excessive formalism to ensure compliance with Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, June 18, 2026, Case No. 23-18.170

News, 18 June 2026

🔎 Prohibition on leaving french territory without the consent of both parents : The Court may limit the measure to the parent who presents a risk of non-return Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, July 1, 2026, Case No. 25-21.064 In a judgment delivered on 1 July 2026, the French Court of Cassation clarified that Article 373-2-6 of the French Civil Code allows the court to limit a prohibition on a child leaving French territory to the parent who presents a risk of failing to return the child. In this case, the Family Court had ordered that two children could not leave France without the authorization of both parents. It reasoned that, although the risk of non-return concerned only the mother, the travel restriction could only operate on a bilateral basis and therefore had to apply equally to the father. The French Court of Cassation was asked to determine whether a prohibition on leaving French territory may be limited to the sole parent who presents a risk of non-return. The First Civil Chamber answered yes. Relying on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 2§2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), the Court held that the travel restriction, as defined in Article 373-2-6 of the Civil Code constitutes an interference with both the right to respect for family life and the freedom of movement. Therefore, this measure must be necessary and proportionate to the goal of preventing non-return and breaking ties with the other parent. Consequently, it is up to the judge to evaluate the measure of prohibiting the children from leaving the territory based on the risk of non-representation that each parent presents. This decision clarifies that a prohibition of leaving French territory is not necessarily bilateral: it can now be individualized when the circumstances demonstrate that only one parent poses a risk of non-representation. Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, July 1, 2026, Case No. 25-21.064